PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1159631)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  PISA. The effect of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen on body temperature in acute stroke: Protocol for a phase II double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial [ISRCTN98608690] 
Background
During the first days after stroke, one to two fifths of the patients develop fever or subfebrile temperatures. Body temperature is a strong prognostic factor after stroke. Pharmacological reduction of temperature in patients with acute ischaemic stroke may improve their functional outcome. Previously, we studied the effect of high dose (6 g daily) and low dose (3 g daily) paracetamol (acetaminophen) in a randomised placebo-controlled trial of 75 patients with acute ischemic stroke. In the high-dose paracetamol group, mean body temperature at 12 and 24 hours after start of treatment was 0.4°C lower than in the placebo group. The effect of ibuprofen, another potent antipyretic drug, on body-core temperature in normothermic patients has not been studied.
Aim
The aim of the present trial is to study the effects of high-dose paracetamol and ibuprofen on body temperature in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, and to study the safety of these treatments.
Design
Seventy-five (3 × 25) patients with acute ischaemic stroke confined to the anterior circulation will be randomised to treatment with either: 400 mg ibuprofen, 1000 mg acetaminophen, or with placebo 6 times daily during 5 days. Body-temperatures will be measured with a rectal electronic thermometer at the start of treatment and after 24 hours. An infrared tympanic thermometer will be used to monitor body temperature at 2-hour intervals during the first 24 hours and at 12-hour intervals thereafter. The primary outcome measure will be rectal temperature at 24 hours after the start of treatment. The study results will be analysed on an intent-to-treat basis, but an on-treatment analysis will also be performed. No formal interim analysis will be carried out.
PMCID: PMC101394  PMID: 11918829
2.  PAIS: paracetamol (acetaminophen) in stroke; protocol for a randomized, double blind clinical trial. [ISCRTN 74418480] 
Background
In patients with acute stroke, increased body temperature is associated with large lesion volumes, high case fatality, and poor functional outcome. A 1°C increase in body temperature may double the odds of poor outcome. Two randomized double-blind clinical trials in patients with acute ischemic stroke have shown that treatment with a daily dose of 6 g acetaminophen (paracetamol) results in a small but rapid and potentially worthwhile reduction of 0.3°C (95% CI: 0.1–0.5) in body temperature. We set out to test the hypothesis that early antipyretic therapy reduces the risk of death or dependency in patients with acute stroke, even if they are normothermic.
Methods/design
Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) In Stroke (PAIS) is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, comparing high-dose acetaminophen with placebo in 2500 patients. Inclusion criteria are a clinical diagnosis of hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke and the possibility to start treatment within 12 hours from onset of symptoms. The study will have a power of 86% to detect an absolute difference of 6% in the risk of death or dependency at three months, and a power of 72% to detect an absolute difference of 5%, at a 5% significance level.
Discussion
This is a simple trial, with a drug that only has a small effect on body temperature in normothermic patients. However, when lowering body temperature with acetaminophen does have the expected effectiveness, 20 patients will have to be treated to prevent dependency or death in one.
doi:10.1186/1471-2261-5-24
PMCID: PMC1208871  PMID: 16109181
3.  Correction: PAIS: paracetamol (acetaminophen) in stroke; protocol for a randomized, double blind clinical trial. [ISCRTN74418480] 
Background
The Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) In Stroke (PAIS) study is a phase III multicenter, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of high-dose acetaminophen in patients with acute stroke. The trial compares treatment with a daily dose of 6 g acetaminophen, started within 12 hours after the onset of symptoms, with matched placebo. The purpose of this study is to assess whether treatment with acetaminophen for 3 days will result in improved functional outcome through a modest reduction in body temperature and prevention of fever.
The previously planned statistical analysis based on a dichotomization of the scores on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) may not make the most efficient use of the available baseline information. Therefore, the planned primary analysis of the PAIS study has been changed from fixed dichotomization of the mRS to a sliding dichotomy analysis.
Methods
Instead of taking a single definition of good outcome for all patients, the definition is tailored to each individual patient's baseline prognosis on entry into the trial.
Conclusion
The protocol change was initiated because of both advances in statistical approaches and to increase the efficiency of the trial by improving statistical power.
Trial Registration
Current Controlled Trials [ISCRTN74418480]
doi:10.1186/1471-2261-8-29
PMCID: PMC2600816  PMID: 18983661
4.  Efficacy of Standard Doses of Ibuprofen Alone, Alternating, and Combined With Acetaminophen for the Treatment of Febrile Children 
Clinical therapeutics  2010;32(14):2433-2440.
Background
Many pediatricians recommend, and many parents administer, alternating or combined doses of ibuprofen and acetaminophen for fever. Limited data support this practice with standard US doses.
Objective
This study compared the antipyretic effect of 3 different treatment regimens in children, using either ibuprofen alone, ibuprofen combined with acetaminophen, or ibuprofen followed by acetaminophen over a single 6-hour observation period.
Methods
Febrile episodes from children aged 6 to 84 months were randomized into the 3 treatment groups: a single dose of ibuprofen at the beginning of the observation period; a single dose of ibuprofen plus a single dose of acetaminophen at the beginning of the observation period; or ibuprofen followed by acetaminophen 3 hours later. Ibuprofen was administered at 10 mg/kg; acetaminophen at 15 mg/kg. Temperatures were measured hourly for 6 hours using a temporal artery thermometer. The primary outcome was temperature difference between treatment groups. Adverse-event data were not collected in this single treatment period study.
Results
Sixty febrile episodes in 46 children were assessed. The mean (SD) age of the children was 3.4 (2.2) years, and 31 (51.7%) were girls. Differences among temperature curves were significant (P < 0.001; the combined and alternating arms had significantly better antipyresis compared with the ibuprofen-alone group at hours 4 to 6 (hour 4, P < 0.005; hours 5 and 6, P < 0.001). All but one of the children in the combined and alternating groups were afebrile at hours 4, 5, and 6. In contrast, for those receiving ibuprofen alone, 30%, 40%, and 50% had temperatures >38.0°C at hours 4, 5, and 6, respectively (hour 4, P < 0.002; hours 5 and 6, P < 0.001).
Conclusion
During a single 6-hour observation period for these participating children, combined and alternating doses of ibuprofen and acetaminophen provided greater antipyresis than ibuprofen alone at 4 to 6 hours.
doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.01.006
PMCID: PMC3614072  PMID: 21353111
fever; antipyretic; acetaminophen; ibuprofen
5.  Alternating ibuprofen and acetaminophen in the treatment of febrile children: a pilot study [ISRCTN30487061] 
BMC Medicine  2006;4:4.
Background
Alternating ibuprofen and acetaminophen for the treatment of febrile children is a prevalent practice among physicians and parents, despite the lack of evidence on effectiveness or safety. This randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled clinical trial aims at comparing the antipyretic effectiveness and safety of a single administration of alternating ibuprofen and acetaminophen doses to that of ibuprofen mono-therapy in febrile children.
Methods
Seventy febrile children were randomly allocated to receive either a single oral dose of 10 mg/kg ibuprofen and 15 mg/kg oral acetaminophen after 4 hours, or a similar dose of ibuprofen and placebo at 4 hours. Rectal temperature was measured at baseline, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 hours later. Endpoints included proportions of afebrile children at 6, 7 and 8 hours, maximum decline in temperature, time to recurrence of fever, and change in temperature from baseline at each time point. Intent-to-treat analysis was planned with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Results
A higher proportion of subjects in the intervention group (83.3%) became afebrile at 6 hours than in the control group (57.6%); P = 0.018. This difference was accentuated at 7 and 8 hours (P < 0.001) with a significantly longer time to recurrence of fever in the intervention group (mean ± SD of 7.4 ± 1.3 versus 5.7 ± 2.2 hours), P < 0.001. Odds ratios (95%CI) for defervescence were 5.6 (1.3; 23.8), 19.5 (3.5; 108.9) and 15.3 (3.4; 68.3) at 6, 7 and 8 hours respectively. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures over time revealed a significantly larger decline in temperature in the intervention group at times 7 (P = 0.026) and 8 (P = 0.002) hours.
Conclusion
A single dose of alternating ibuprofen and acetaminophen appears to be a superior antipyretic regimen than ibuprofen mono-therapy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-4-4
PMCID: PMC1421419  PMID: 16515705
6.  Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): randomised controlled trial 
Objective To investigate whether paracetamol (acetaminophen) plus ibuprofen are superior to either drug alone for increasing time without fever and the relief of fever associated discomfort in febrile children managed at home.
Design Individually randomised, blinded, three arm trial.
Setting Primary care and households in England.
Participants Children aged between 6 months and 6 years with axillary temperatures of at least 37.8°C and up to 41.0°C.
Intervention Advice on physical measures to reduce temperature and the provision of, and advice to give, paracetamol plus ibuprofen, paracetamol alone, or ibuprofen alone.
Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were the time without fever (<37.2°C) in the first four hours after the first dose was given and the proportion of children reported as being normal on the discomfort scale at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were time to first occurrence of normal temperature (fever clearance), time without fever over 24 hours, fever associated symptoms, and adverse effects.
Results On an intention to treat basis, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol for less time with fever in the first four hours (adjusted difference 55 minutes, 95% confidence interval 33 to 77; P<0.001) and may have been as good as ibuprofen (16 minutes, −7 to 39; P=0.2). For less time with fever over 24 hours, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol (4.4 hours, 2.4 to 6.3; P<0.001) and to ibuprofen (2.5 hours, 0.6 to 4.4; P=0.008). Combined therapy cleared fever 23 minutes (2 to 45; P=0.025) faster than paracetamol alone but no faster than ibuprofen alone (−3 minutes, 18 to −24; P=0.8). No benefit was found for discomfort or other symptoms, although power was low for these outcomes. Adverse effects did not differ between groups.
Conclusion Parents, nurses, pharmacists, and doctors wanting to use medicines to supplement physical measures to maximise the time that children spend without fever should use ibuprofen first and consider the relative benefits and risks of using paracetamol plus ibuprofen over 24 hours.
Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26362730.
doi:10.1136/bmj.a1302
PMCID: PMC2528896  PMID: 18765450
7.  Effectiveness and tolerability of once-daily nimesulide versus ibuprofen in pain management after surgical extraction of an impacted third molar: A 24-hour, double-blind, randomized, double-dummy, parallel-group study 
Background:
Nimesulide is a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug that hasbeen used for a wide range of acute and chronic pain. A once-daily formulation of nimesulide is now commercially available, but its effectiveness in pain management after dental surgery has not been assessed.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic effectiveness and tolerability of oral treatment with once-daily nimesulide versus ibuprofen q6h over 24 hours in patients with postoperative pain associated with surgical extraction of an impacted third molar.
Methods:
This 24-hour, double-blind, randomized, double-dummy, parallel-groupstudy was conducted at a private practice in Caracas, Venezuela. Patients aged between 12 and 60 years with moderate to severe pain after extraction of an impacted third molar were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of nimesulide (300-mg tablet) or ibuprofen (400-mg tablets) q6h for 24 hours. For double-dummy design, patients in the nimesulide group also received ibuprofen placebo tablets, to be taken q6h for 24 hours, and patients in the ibuprofen group received a nimesulide placebo tablet. The primary end points were pain intensity (PI) and pain relief scores over 24 hours. Secondary end points included total pain relief, PI difference (PID), sum of PID (SPID), time to first measurable change in PI (ie, PID ≥ 10 mm), and use of rescue medication (acetaminophen). Patients also rated the treatment's effectiveness as very poor to very good on questioning by the study investigator. Spontaneously reported adverse effects (AEs) were recorded.
Results:
Eighty-six patients were enrolled (56 females, 30 males), with 43 patientsper treatment group (mean age: nimesulide group, 25.2 years; ibuprofen group, 24.2 years). The baseline characteristics were statistically similar between the 2 groups. Compared with baseline, mean PI scores were significantly lower in both treatment groups at all time points throughout the study (P < 0.001). Mean PI scores were significantly lower in the nimesulide group compared with the ibuprofen group at 15 and 45 minutes and 1 hour after study drug administration (P ≤ 0.049). Time to first measurable change in PI was within the first 15 minutes in 22 patients (52%) in the nimesulide group and in 14 patients (33%) in the ibuprofen group (P = 0.03). Analgesia lasted 24 hours with nimesulide and ibuprofen (PI scores at 24 hours, 9.4 and 3.6, respectively). The mean PR score was significantly lower in the nimesulide group compared with the ibuprofen group at 1 hour after study drug administration (P = 0.049). Compared with baseline, PID and SPID were significantly higher in both treatment groups throughout the study (P < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the nimesulide group than in the ibuprofen group reported that treatment provided effective pain relief (82% vs 73%; P = 0.013). No AEs were reported in either treatment group throughout the study. Use of rescue medication was statistically similar between the nimesulide and ibuprofen groups (38% and 31%, respectively).
Conclusions:
In this study of patients with moderate to severe pain afterextraction of impacted third molars, nimesulide and ibuprofen provided effective 24-hour relief. However, the results suggest that the analgesic effect of nimesulide had a faster onset (<15 minutes) and was stronger (based on patient opinion) than that of ibuprofen. Both study drugs were well tolerated.
doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.06.007
PMCID: PMC3964531  PMID: 24672121
nimesulide; ibuprofen; dental pain; programmed liberation
8.  Effect of acetaminophen and fluvastatin on post-dose symptoms following infusion of zoledronic acid 
Osteoporosis International  2010;22(8):2337-2345.
Summary
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy of acetaminophen or fluvastatin in preventing post-dose symptoms (increases in body temperature or use of rescue medication) following a single infusion of the intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZOL). Acetaminophen, but not fluvastatin, significantly reduced the incidence and severity of post-dose symptoms.
Introduction
Transient symptoms including myalgia and pyrexia have been reported post-infusion of IV bisphosphonates, typically starting the day after infusion and resolving within several days. The cause is unknown but may be related to transient cytokine elevations. Statins’ potential to block release of these cytokines has been hypothesized. This study was aimed to evaluate efficacy of acetaminophen and fluvastatin in preventing/reducing post-dose symptoms following ZOL 5 mg infusion.
Methods
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy of acetaminophen or fluvastatin in preventing increases in body temperature or use of rescue medication (ibuprofen) following a single ZOL infusion. Bisphosphonate-naive postmenopausal women with low bone mass (N = 793) were randomized into three treatment groups and given 650 mg acetaminophen or 80 mg fluvastatin or placebo 45 min before ZOL infusion. The acetaminophen group continued taking 650 mg acetaminophen every 6 h over the next 3 days, and the other two groups took matching placebo according to the same schedule. Subjects recorded body temperature, symptoms in a diary. Inflammatory cytokines and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured at baseline, 24, and 72 h in a study subset.
Results
Acetaminophen four times/day significantly reduced the incidence and severity of post-dose symptoms following ZOL infusion. Single-dose fluvastatin 80 mg prior to ZOL infusion did not prevent/reduce post-dose symptoms. Cytokine levels increased by 24 h and returned towards baseline by 72 h, similar to the pattern for post-infusion symptoms. CRP levels increased from baseline to 72 h.
Conclusions
Acetaminophen four times/day for 3 days significantly reduced the incidence and severity of post-dose symptoms following ZOL infusion.
doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1448-2
PMCID: PMC3132314  PMID: 21116816
Cytokines; Fluvastatin; Inflammatory biomarkers; Osteoporosis; Post-dose symptoms; Zoledronic acid
9.  Randomized comparative trial of efficacy of paracetamol, ibuprofen and paracetamol-ibuprofen combination for treatment of febrile children 
Objective:
Paracetamol and ibuprofen are widely used for fever in children as monotherapy and as combined therapy. None of the treatments is proven clearly superior to others. Hence, the study was planned to compare the efficacy of paracetamol, ibuprofen and paracetamol-ibuprofen combination for treatment of febrile children.
Materials and Methods:
This was an investigator blind, randomized, comparative, parallel clinical trial conducted in 99 febrile children, 6 months to 12 years of age, allocated to three groups. First group received paracetamol 15 mg/kg, second group received ibuprofen 10 mg/kg and third group received both paracetamol and ibuprofen, all as a single dose by the oral route. Patients were followed-up at intervals of 1, 2, 3 and 4 h post dose by tympanic thermometry.
Results:
Mean tympanic temperature after 4 h of drug administration was significantly lower in the combination group compared with paracetamol group (P < 0.05); however, the difference was not clinically significant (<1°C). The rate of fall of temperature was highest in the combination group. Number of afebrile children any time post dose until 4 h was highest in the combination group. Difference between combination and paracetamol was significant for the 1st h (P = 0.04). Highest fall of temperature was noted in the 1st h of drug administration in all the groups. No serious adverse events were observed in any of the groups.
Conclusion:
Paracetamol and ibuprofen combination caused quicker temperature reduction than either paracetamol or ibuprofen alone. If quicker reduction of body temperature is the desired goal of therapy, the use of combination of paracetamol + ibuprofen may be advocated.
doi:10.4103/2229-3485.124567
PMCID: PMC3915365  PMID: 24551584
Children; combination therapy; fever; ibuprofen; paracetamol
10.  Short-Term Efficacy of Rofecoxib and Diclofenac in Acute Shoulder Pain: A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial 
PLoS Clinical Trials  2007;2(3):e9.
Objectives:
To evaluate the short-term symptomatic efficacy of rofecoxib and diclofenac versus placebo in acute episodes of shoulder pain.
Design:
Randomized controlled trial of 7 days.
Setting:
Rheumatologists and/or general practitioners totaling 47.
Participants:
Acute shoulder pain.
Interventions:
Rofecoxib 50 mg once daily, diclofenac 50 mg three times daily, and placebo.
Outcome measures:
Pain, functional impairment, patient's global assessment of his/her disease activity, and local steroid injection requirement for persistent pain. The primary variable was the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of patients at day 7 fulfilling the definition of success (improvement in pain intensity and a low pain level sustained to the end of the 7 days of the study; log-rank test).
Results:
There was no difference in the baseline characteristics between the three groups (rofecoxib n = 88, placebo n = 94, and diclofenac n = 89). At day 7, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of successful patients was higher in the treatment groups than in the placebo (54%, 56%, and 38% in the diclofenac, rofecoxib, and placebo groups respectively, p = 0.0070 and p = 0.0239 for placebo versus rofecoxib and diclofenac, respectively). During the 7 days of the study, there was a statistically significant difference between placebo and both active arms (rofecoxib and diclofenac) in all the evaluated outcome measures A local steroid injection had to be performed in 33 (35%) and 19 (22%) patients in the placebo and rofecoxib group respectively. Number needed to treat to avoid such rescue therapy was 7 patients (95% confidence interval 5–15).
Conclusion:
This study highlights the methodological aspects of clinical trials, e.g., eligibility criteria and outcome measures, in acute painful conditions. The data also establish that diclofenac and rofecoxib are effective therapies for the management of acute painful shoulder and that they reduce the requirement for local steroid injection.
Editorial Commentary
Background: Shoulder pain is a very common complaint that presents in primary care, and there are many different possible causes. Acute pain would normally be managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), supplemented with steroid injections (which are often reserved for the treatment of severe or persistent pain). One NSAID, diclofenac, is used frequently for this condition, but other NSAIDs might also be effective. A subgroup of NSAIDs called the Cox-2 selective inhibitors specifically inhibit one particular enzyme (cyclo-oxygenase, shortened to Cox-2) which is involved in inflammation and pain. These drugs are thought to be less likely to cause stomach irritation than other NSAIDs. Therefore the researchers in this study carried out a short-term, three-way clinical trial comparing diclofenac with one particular Cox-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib, and placebo in patients with acute shoulder pain. However, rofecoxib was withdrawn from the market in September 2004 because of evidence that use of the drug was associated with an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes, and controversy remains regarding the risk of such events among users of other Cox-2 inhibitors.
What this trial shows: The main aim of this trial was to compare the level of pain relief over seven days of treatment with either diclofenac or rofecoxib, as compared to placebo. The primary outcome measure used in the trial was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% or greater decrease in pain levels over the course of the study, measured using a numerical rating scale. A total of 273 participants were recruited into the trial and at day 7 the proportion achieving a 30% decrease in pain was 38% in the placebo arm, 54% in the diclofenac arm, and 56% in the rofecoxib arm. The differences in this outcome measure between diclofenac and placebo and between rofecoxib and placebo were statistically significant; however, the researchers did not carry out a direct comparison between diclofenac and rofecoxib. The rates of adverse events were roughly comparable between all three arms of the trial, although the study was not originally planned to be large enough to detect differences in the rates of such events, so it is not possible to conclude whether there was any true difference.
Strengths and limitations: The randomization procedures used in the study minimize the possibility of bias in assigning patients to treatment arms. Bias in assessment of outcomes was also minimized by ensuring that steps were taken to prevent investigators and patients from knowing which drugs a particular patient received until the end of the trial. A key limitation of the study is the short follow-up, only seven days, and it is therefore unclear whether efficacy and safety of these drugs would continue for the much longer periods of time (weeks or even months) for which these patients might need pain relief. Finally, patients randomized to the placebo arm received no treatment for the seven days of the study other than acetaminophen or steroid injections (which would result in withdrawal from the trial). This design does not limit interpretation of the data but could be criticized because of concern over whether the patients receiving placebo received adequate pain relief.
Contribution to the evidence: This study provides some data on the efficacy of diclofenac and rofecoxib, as compared to placebo in treatment of this condition. Given that rofecoxib is now withdrawn, the efficacy of this drug is no longer relevant. However, the information from this trial should help in designing future studies of NSAIDs in shoulder pain, for example to define appropriate trial outcomes, sample size, and other aspects of study design.
doi:10.1371/journal.pctr.0020009
PMCID: PMC1817652  PMID: 17347681
11.  A multi-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in critically ill and non-critically ill adults 
Critical Care  2010;14(3):R125.
Introduction
Hospitalized patients are often unable to ingest or tolerate oral antipyretics and recently an aqueous formulation of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen was approved by the US-FDA for the reduction of fever in adults.
Methods
We evaluated IV ibuprofen to reduce fever exceeding 101.0°F, measured as the percentage of subjects achieving a temperature <101.0°F at four hours after a single dose of IV ibuprofen vs. placebo. Secondary evaluations included the effect on temperature at 24 hours. Nine sites randomized patients to receive either a placebo or IV ibuprofen (100, 200, or 400 mg), and patients were given four hours for six doses. Subjects were excluded for platelet count <30 k and/or creatinine >3.0 mg/dL.
Results
At entry, there were no significant baseline differences between the IV ibuprofen group and placebo, n = 120. At four hours, the number (percentage) with T<101.0°F was: Placebo n = 9/28 (32%); 100 mg IV ibuprofen n = 19/31 (61%), P = 0.0264; 200 mg IV ibuprofen n = 21/30 (70%) P = 0.0043; 400 mg IV ibuprofen n = 24/31 (77%) P = 0.0005. A total of 53/120 patients (44%) were prospectively defined as critically ill at baseline and similar temperature reductions were observed in this subgroup. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups or when compared to placebo in transfusion, bleeding, renal failure or mortality.
Conclusions
All doses of IV ibuprofen tested reduced fever at four hours and throughout the first 24 hours of dosing. The 400 mg dose was effective in lowering temperature to normal and maintaining this over the first 24 hours of dosing. IV ibuprofen was effective in reducing fevers in critically ill and non-critically ill groups. Following 24 hours of administration of IV ibuprofen, no clinically significant differences in any safety parameter including renal function or bleeding occurred through the 28-day follow-up period.
Trial registrations
Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01131000.
doi:10.1186/cc9089
PMCID: PMC2911773  PMID: 20591173
12.  Ibuprofen, paracetamol, and steam for patients with respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic randomised factorial trial 
Objective To assess strategies for advice on analgesia and steam inhalation for respiratory tract infections.
Design Open pragmatic parallel group factorial randomised controlled trial.
Setting Primary care in United Kingdom.
Participants Patients aged ≥3 with acute respiratory tract infections.
Intervention 889 patients were randomised with computer generated random numbers in pre-prepared sealed numbered envelopes to components of advice or comparator advice: advice on analgesia (take paracetamol, ibuprofen, or both), dosing of analgesia (take as required v regularly), and steam inhalation (no inhalation v steam inhalation).
Outcomes Primary: mean symptom severity on days 2-4; symptoms rated 0 (no problem) to 7 (as bad as it can be). Secondary: temperature, antibiotic use, reconsultations.
Results Neither advice on dosing nor on steam inhalation was significantly associated with changes in outcomes. Compared with paracetamol, symptom severity was little different with ibuprofen (adjusted difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval −0.11 to 0.19) or the combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol (0.11, −0.04 to 0.26). There was no evidence for selective benefit with ibuprofen among most subgroups defined before analysis (presence of otalgia; previous duration of symptoms; temperature >37.5°C; severe symptoms), but there was evidence of reduced symptoms severity benefit in the subgroup with chest infections (ibuprofen −0.40, −0.78 to −0.01; combination −0.47; −0.84 to −0.10), equivalent to almost one in two symptoms rated as a slight rather than a moderately bad problem. Children might also benefit from treatment with ibuprofen (ibuprofen: −0.47, −0.76 to −0.18; combination: −0.04, −0.31 to 0.23). Reconsultations with new/unresolved symptoms or complications were documented in 12% of those advised to take paracetamol, 20% of those advised to take ibuprofen (adjusted risk ratio 1.67, 1.12 to 2.38), and 17% of those advised to take the combination (1.49, 0.98 to 2.18). Mild thermal injury with steam was documented for four patients (2%) who returned full diaries, but no reconsultations with scalding were documented.
Conclusion Overall advice to use steam inhalation, or ibuprofen rather than paracetamol, does not help control symptoms in patients with acute respiratory tract infections and must be balanced against the possible progression of symptoms during the next month for a minority of patients. Advice to use ibuprofen might help short term control of symptoms in those with chest infections and in children.
Trial registration ISRCTN 38551726.
doi:10.1136/bmj.f6041
PMCID: PMC3808081  PMID: 24162940
13.  Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain in adults 
Background
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2004 - this original review had been split from a previous title on ‘Single dose paracetamol (acetaminophen) with and without codeine for postoperative pain’. The last version of this review concluded that paracetamol is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain, but additional trials have since been published. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol using current data, and to compare the findings with other analgesics evaluated in the same way.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy of single dose oral paracetamol for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.
Search methods
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database and reference lists of articles to update an existing version of the review in July 2008.
Selection criteria
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Area under the “pain relief versus time” curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with paracetamol or placebo experiencing at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, using validated equations. Number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) was calculated, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use, were sought as measures of duration of analgesia. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected.
Main results
Fifty-one studies, with 5762 participants, were included: 3277 participants were treated with a single oral dose of paracetamol and 2425 with placebo. About half of participants treated with paracetamol at standard doses achieved at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, compared with about 20% treated with placebo. NNTs for at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours following a single dose of paracetamol were as follows: 500 mg NNT 3.5 (2.7 to 4.8); 600 to 650 mg NNT 4.6 (3.9 to 5.5); 975 to 1000 mg NNT 3.6 (3.4 to 4.0). There was no dose response. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant effect of trial size or quality on this outcome.
About half of participants needed additional analgesia over four to six hours, compared with about 70% with placebo. Five people would need to be treated with 1000 mg paracetamol, the most commonly used dose, to prevent one needing rescue medication over four to six hours, who would have needed it with placebo. Adverse event reporting was inconsistent and often incomplete. Reported adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and occurred at similar rates with 1000 mg paracetamol and placebo. No serious adverse events were reported. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon and occurred in both paracetamol and placebo treatment arms.
Authors’ conclusions
A single dose of paracetamol provides effective analgesia for about half of patients with acute postoperative pain, for a period of about four hours, and is associated with few, mainly mild, adverse events.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004602.pub2
PMCID: PMC4163965  PMID: 18843665
Acetaminophen [*administration & dosage; adverse effects]; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic [*administration & dosage; adverse effects]; Pain, Postoperative [*drug therapy]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adult; Humans
14.  A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Acetaminophen for Prevention of Post-Vaccination Fever in Infants 
PLoS ONE  2011;6(6):e20102.
Background
Fever is common following infant vaccinations. Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy of acetaminophen prophylaxis in preventing fever after whole cell pertussis vaccination, but acetaminophen prophylaxis has not been evaluated for prevention of fever following contemporary vaccines recommended for infants in the United States.
Methods
Children six weeks through nine months of age were randomized 1∶1 to receive up to five doses of acetaminophen (10–15 mg per kg) or placebo following routine vaccinations. The primary outcome was a rectal temperature ≥38°C within 32 hours following the vaccinations. Secondary outcomes included medical utilization, infant fussiness, and parents' time lost from work. Parents could request unblinding of the treatment assignment if the child developed fever or symptoms that would warrant supplementary acetaminophen treatment for children who had been receiving placebo.
Results
A temperature ≥38°C was recorded for 14% (25/176) of children randomized to acetaminophen compared with 22% (37/176) of those randomized to placebo but that difference was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40–1.01). Children randomized to acetaminophen were less likely to be reported as being much more fussy than usual (10% vs 24%) (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25–0.70) or to have the treatment assignment unblinded (3% vs 9%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11–0.83) than those randomized to placebo. In age-stratified analyses, among children ≥24 weeks of age, there was a significantly lower risk of temperature ≥38°C in the acetaminophen group (13% vs. 25%; p = 0.03).
Conclusion
The results of this relatively small trial suggest that acetaminophen may reduce the risk of post-vaccination fever and fussiness.
Trial registration
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00325819
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020102
PMCID: PMC3117800  PMID: 21698100
15.  Effects of a single low-dose acetaminophen on body temperature and running performance in the heat: a pilot project 
Purpose: To examine the effects of a single low-dose (500 mg) acetaminophen on body temperature and running performance in the heat (30 °C). Methods: This is a randomized, cross-over pilot study performed in a climatic chamber at the Department of Sport Science of the University of Innsbruck. Seven male sport students (age, 25.9 ± 2.3 years; VO2max, 67.3 ± 7.1 mL/min/kg) participated in the study. Each participant performed two prolonged exercise tests at a constant intensity on a treadmill at a temperature of 30 °C at an individual intensity corresponding to 70 % VO2max. Two hours before exercising participants were randomly assigned to receive acetaminophen (500 mg) or placebo and performed the same test 2 weeks later with reverse pre-treatment. Results: After 20 min of running in the heat core temperature increase was less under acetaminophen (P = 0.004) and heart rates were higher (P = 0.02) compared to placebo. At the end of exercise neither running time nor body temperature nor ratings of perceived exertion differed between groups. Conclusion: Although the increase in core temperature was slightly reduced by acetaminophen after 20 minutes of running in the heat running performance remained unaffected after pre-treatment with a single low-dose of acetaminophen.
PMCID: PMC3773079  PMID: 24044039
Acetaminophen; heat; running; performance; thermoregulation
16.  A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-group clinical trial to assess the effects of teduglutide on gastric emptying of liquids in healthy subjects 
BMC Gastroenterology  2014;14:25.
Background
Teduglutide, a recombinant analog of human glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-2, is a novel therapy recently approved for the treatment of adult patients with short bowel syndrome who are dependent on parenteral support. Previous studies assessing the effect of GLP-2 on gastric emptying in humans have yielded inconsistent results, with some studies showing no effect and others documenting a GLP-2–dependent delay in gastric emptying. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of teduglutide on gastric emptying of liquids in healthy subjects, as measured by the pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen.
Methods
This double-blind, parallel-group, single-center study enrolled and randomized 36 healthy subjects (22 men, 14 women) to receive subcutaneous doses of teduglutide 4 mg or placebo (2:1 ratio; 23:13) once daily on Days 1 through 10 in the morning. Gastric emptying of a mixed nutrient liquid meal was assessed by measuring acetaminophen levels predose and at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 hours after administration of 1000 mg acetaminophen on Days 0 and 10. The primary study endpoint was a pharmacokinetic analysis of acetaminophen absorption in subjects receiving teduglutide or placebo.
Results
No significant differences in gastric emptying of liquids (acetaminophen area under the concentration [AUC] vs time curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration, AUC extrapolated to infinity, maximum concentration [Cmax], and time to Cmax) were observed on Day 10 in subjects receiving teduglutide 4 mg versus subjects receiving placebo. There were no serious adverse events (AEs), deaths, or discontinuations due to an AE reported during the study.
Conclusions
Teduglutide 4 mg/day for 10 days does not affect gastric emptying of liquids in healthy subjects as measured by acetaminophen pharmacokinetics. No unexpected safety signals were observed.
Trial registration
This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01209351.
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-14-25
PMCID: PMC3928318  PMID: 24517114
Teduglutide; Gastric emptying; Pharmacokinetics; Pharmacodynamics
17.  Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen with codeine for the relief of perineal pain after childbirth: a randomized controlled trial 
Background
Pain from episiotomy or tearing of perineal tissues during childbirth is often poorly treated and may be severe. This randomized double-blind controlled trial was performed to compare the effectiveness, side effects and cost of, and patient preference for, 2 analgesics for the management of postpartum perineal pain.
Methods
A total of 237 women who gave birth vaginally with episiotomy or a third- or fourth-degree tear between August 1995 and November 1996 at a tertiary-level teaching and referral centre for obstetric care in Vancouver were randomly assigned to receive either ibuprofen (400 mg) (n = 127) or acetaminophen (600 mg) with codeine (60 mg) and caffeine (15 mg) (Tylenol No. 3) (n = 110), both given orally every 4 hours as necessary. Pain ratings were recorded before the first dose and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 24 hours after the first dose on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Side effects and overall opinion were assessed at 24 hours.
Results
Ibuprofen and acetaminophen with codeine had similar analgesic properties in the first 24 hours post partum (mean pain rating 3.4 and 3.3, mean number of doses in 24 hours 3.4 and 3.3, and proportion of treatment failures 13.8% [16/116] and 16.0% [16/100] respectively). Significantly fewer subjects in the ibuprofen group than in the acetaminophen with codeine group experienced side effects (52.4% v. 71.7%) (p = 0.006). There were no significant differences in overall patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. The major determinant of pain intensity was forceps-assisted delivery. Overall, 78% of the treatment failures were in women with forceps-assisted deliveries.
Interpretation
Since the 2 analgesics were rated similarly, ibuprofen may be the preferred choice because it is less expensive and requires less nursing time to dispense. Further studies need to address improved analgesia for women with forceps-assisted deliveries.
PMCID: PMC81582  PMID: 11706909
18.  An open-label randomized clinical trial of prophylactic paracetamol coadministered with 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and hexavalent diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, 3-component acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine 
BMC Pediatrics  2013;13:98.
Background
In two clinical trials, low-grade fever was observed more frequently after coadministration than after separate administration of two recommended routine pediatric vaccines. Since fever is an important issue with vaccine tolerability, we performed this open-label study on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of paracetamol (acetaminophen, Benuron®) in children administered routine 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV-7) coadministered with hexavalent vaccine (diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B, poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine [DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib]) in Germany.
Methods
Healthy infants (N = 301) who received a 3-dose infant series of PCV-7 and DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib plus a toddler dose were randomly assigned 1:1 to prophylactic paracetamol (125 mg or 250 mg suppositories, based on body weight) at vaccination, and at 6–8 hour intervals thereafter, or a control group that received no paracetamol. Rectal temperature and local and other systemic reactions were measured for 4 days post vaccination; adverse events were collected throughout the study.
Results
In the intent-to-treat population, paracetamol reduced the incidence of fever ≥38°C, but this reduction was only significant for the infant series, with computed efficacy of 43.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.4, 61.2), and not significant after the toddler dose (efficacy 15.9%; 95% CI: −19.9, 41.3); results were similar in the per protocol (PP) population. Fever >39°C was rare during the infant series, such that there were too few cases for assessment. After the toddler dose, paracetamol effectively reduced fever >39°C, reaching statistical significance in the PP population only (efficacy 79%; 95% CI: 3.9, 97.7). Paracetamol also reduced reactogenicity, but there were few significant differences between groups after any dose. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported.
Conclusions
Paracetamol effectively prevented fever and other reactions, mainly during the infant series. However, as events were generally mild and of no concern in either group our data support current recommendations to administer paracetamol to treat symptoms only and not for routine prophylaxis.
Trial registration
NCT00294294
doi:10.1186/1471-2431-13-98
PMCID: PMC3698010  PMID: 23786774
Fever; Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine; Hexavalent vaccine; Paracetamol; Prophylaxis
19.  Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of Regulations to Reduce Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) Poisoning 
PLoS Medicine  2007;4(4):e105.
Background
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning is the leading cause of acute liver failure in Great Britain and the United States. Successful interventions to reduced harm from paracetamol poisoning are needed. To achieve this, the government of the United Kingdom introduced legislation in 1998 limiting the pack size of paracetamol sold in shops. Several studies have reported recent decreases in fatal poisonings involving paracetamol. We use interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate whether the recent fall in the number of paracetamol deaths is different to trends in fatal poisoning involving aspirin, paracetamol compounds, antidepressants, or nondrug poisoning suicide.
Methods and Findings
We calculated directly age-standardised mortality rates for paracetamol poisoning in England and Wales from 1993 to 2004. We used an ordinary least-squares regression model divided into pre- and postintervention segments at 1999. The model included a term for autocorrelation within the time series. We tested for changes in the level and slope between the pre- and postintervention segments. To assess whether observed changes in the time series were unique to paracetamol, we compared against poisoning deaths involving compound paracetamol (not covered by the regulations), aspirin, antidepressants, and nonpoisoning suicide deaths. We did this comparison by calculating a ratio of each comparison series with paracetamol and applying a segmented regression model to the ratios. No change in the ratio level or slope indicated no difference compared to the control series. There were about 2,200 deaths involving paracetamol. The age-standardised mortality rate rose from 8.1 per million in 1993 to 8.8 per million in 1997, subsequently falling to about 5.3 per million in 2004. After the regulations were introduced, deaths dropped by 2.69 per million (p = 0.003). Trends in the age-standardised mortality rate for paracetamol compounds, aspirin, and antidepressants were broadly similar to paracetamol, increasing until 1997 and then declining. Nondrug poisoning suicide also declined during the study period, but was highest in 1993. The segmented regression models showed that the age-standardised mortality rate for compound paracetamol dropped less after the regulations (p = 0.012) but declined more rapidly afterward (p = 0.031). However, age-standardised rates for aspirin and antidepressants fell in a similar way to paracetamol after the regulations. Nondrug poisoning suicide declined at a similar rate to paracetamol after the regulations were introduced.
Conclusions
Introduction of regulations to limit availability of paracetamol coincided with a decrease in paracetamol-poisoning mortality. However, fatal poisoning involving aspirin, antidepressants, and to a lesser degree, paracetamol compounds, also showed similar trends. This raises the question whether the decline in paracetamol deaths was due to the regulations or was part of a wider trend in decreasing drug-poisoning mortality. We found little evidence to support the hypothesis that the 1998 regulations limiting pack size resulted in a greater reduction in poisoning deaths involving paracetamol than occurred for other drugs or nondrug poisoning suicide.
Analysis of mortality rates for paracetamol poisoning in England and Wales does not support the view that regulations limiting pack size have been responsible for a reduction in deaths.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Paracetamol—known as acetaminophen in the United States—is a cheap and effective painkiller. It is widely used to relieve minor aches and pains as well as fevers and headaches. Recommended doses of paracetamol are considered safe in humans, but overdoses are toxic and can cause liver failure and death. Because this drug is very easy to get hold of, there are many overdoses each year, either accidental or deliberate. In the UK, paracetamol poisoning is the most common cause of acute liver failure. Toward the end of 1998, new laws were introduced in the UK to try to reduce the number of paracetamol overdoses. These laws said that pharmacies could not sell packs of paracetamol containing more than 32 tablets and other shops could not sell packs with more than 16 tablets. One of the reasons behind the introduction of this law was that many suicides are not preplanned and, therefore, if it was harder for people to get hold of or keep large quantities of tablets, they might be less likely to attempt suicide or accidentally overdose.
Why Was This Study Done?
Following the introduction of these new laws, the number of deaths caused by paracetamol overdose in the UK dropped. However, it is possible that the drop in deaths came about for a variety of different reasons and not just as a result of the new laws on paracetamol pack size. For example, the suicide rate might have been falling anyway due to other changes in society and the fall in death rate from paracetamol might just have been part of that trend. It is important to find out whether the legal changes that were introduced to address a public health problem did in fact bring about a change for the better. This knowledge would also be relevant to other countries that are considering similar changes.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers used data from the Office of National Statistics, which holds information on drug poisoning deaths in England and Wales. These data were then broken down by the type of drug that was mentioned on the death certificate. The researchers compared death rates involving the following drugs: paracetamol; paracetamol-containing compounds (which were not subject to the new pack size laws); aspirin; antidepressant drugs; and then finally non-drug poisoning suicides. The reason for comparing death rates involving paracetamol against death rates involving other drugs, or non-drug suicide, was that this method would allow the researchers to see if the drop in paracetamol deaths followed overall trends in the poisoning or suicide rates or not. If the paracetamol death rate dropped following introduction of the new laws but the rates of other types of poisoning or suicide did not, then there would be a link between the new laws and a fall in paracetamol suicides. The researchers compared these death data within specific time periods before the end of 1998 (when the new laws on paracetamol pack size were introduced) and after.
Overall, there were nearly 2,200 deaths involving paracetamol between 1993 and 2004. The number of deaths per year involving paracetamol dropped substantially when comparing the periods of time before the end of 1998 and after it. However, the number of deaths per year involving any drug, and the non-drug suicides, also fell during this period of time. When comparing the trends for paracetamol deaths with other poisoning or suicide deaths, the researchers did not find any statistical evidence that the fall in paracetamol deaths was any different to the overall trend in poisoning or suicide death rates.
What Do These Findings Mean?
Although the paracetamol death rate fell immediately following the new laws on pack size, this study suggests the link might just be coincidence. The researchers could not find any data supporting the idea that the new laws caused a drop in paracetamol deaths. However, this was an observational study, not a true experimental one: the researchers here were clearly not able to set up equivalent “experimental” and “control” groups for comparison. It is very difficult to prove or disprove conclusively that new laws such as this are, or are not, effective.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040105
Information is available from Medline Plus about suicide
Wikipedia has an entry on paracetamol (note that Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia anyone can edit)
Information about regulation of drugs in the UK is available from the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency
The Office for National Statistics provides key economic and social data about the UK, and is involved in many other important projects
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040105
PMCID: PMC1845154  PMID: 17407385
20.  The effect of acetaminophen (four grams a day for three consecutive days) on hepatic tests in alcoholic patients – a multicenter randomized study 
BMC Medicine  2007;5:13.
Background
Hepatic failure has been associated with reported therapeutic use of acetaminophen by alcoholic patients. The highest risk period for alcoholic patients is immediately after discontinuation of alcohol intake. This period exhibits the largest increase in CYP2E1 induction and lowest glutathione levels. Our hypothesis was that common liver tests would be unaffected by administration of the maximum recommended daily dosage of acetaminophen for 3 consecutive days to newly-abstinent alcoholic subjects.
Methods
Adult alcoholic subjects entering two alcohol detoxification centers were enrolled in a prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects were randomized to acetaminophen, 4 g/day, or placebo for 3 consecutive days. The study had 95% probability of detecting a 15 IU/L difference in serum ALT.
Results
A total of 443 subjects were enrolled: 308 (258 completed) received acetaminophen and 135 subjects (114 completed) received placebo. Study groups did not differ in demographics, alcohol consumption, nutritional status or baseline laboratory assessments. The peak mean ALT activity was 57 ± 45 IU/L and 55 ± 48 IU/L in the acetaminophen and placebo groups, respectively. Subgroup analyses for subjects presenting with an elevated ALT, subjects fulfilling a diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis and subjects attaining a peak ALT greater than 200 IU/L showed no statistical difference between the acetaminophen and control groups. The one participant developing an increased international normalized ratio was in the placebo group.
Conclusion
Alcoholic patients treated with the maximum recommended daily dose of acetaminophen for 3 consecutive days did not develop increases in serum transaminase or other measures of liver injury. Treatment of pain or fever for 3 days with acetaminophen appears safe in newly-abstinent alcoholic patients, such as those presenting for acute medical care.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-5-13
PMCID: PMC1894983  PMID: 17537264
21.  Effects of the once-daily GLP-1 analog liraglutide on gastric emptying, glycemic parameters, appetite and energy metabolism in obese, non-diabetic adults 
Introduction:
Mechanisms for liraglutide-induced weight loss are poorly understood.
Objective:
We investigated the effects of liraglutide on gastric emptying, glycemic parameters, appetite and energy metabolism in obese non-diabetic individuals.
Design:
Participants (N=49, 18–75 years, body mass index: 30–40 kg m−2) were randomized to two of three treatments: liraglutide 1.8 mg, 3.0 mg, or placebo in a double-blind, incomplete crossover trial. After 5 weeks, 24-h energy expenditure (EE) and substrate oxidation were measured in a respiratory chamber. Gastric emptying (acetaminophen absorption method), glycemic parameters and appetite were assessed during a 5-h meal test. Ad libitum energy intake during a subsequent lunch was also assessed.
Results:
Five-hour gastric emptying (AUC0–300 min) was found to be equivalent for liraglutide 1.8 versus 3.0 mg (primary end point), and for both liraglutide doses versus placebo, as 90% confidence intervals for the estimated treatment ratios were contained within the prespecified interval (0.80–1.25). However, 1-h gastric emptying was 23% lower than placebo with liraglutide 3.0 mg (P=0.007), and a nonsignificant 13% lower than placebo with liraglutide 1.8 mg (P=0.14). Both liraglutide doses similarly reduced fasting glucose (0.5–0.6 mmol l−1 versus placebo, P<0.0001), glucose Cmax and 1-h AUC versus placebo; only liraglutide 3.0 mg reduced iAUC0–300 min (by ∼26% versus placebo, P=0.02). Glucagon iAUC0–300 min decreased by ∼30%, and iAUC0–60 min for insulin and C-peptide was ∼20% lower with both liraglutide doses versus placebo. Liraglutide doses similarly increased mean postprandial satiety and fullness ratings, reduced hunger and prospective food consumption and decreased ad libitum energy intake by ∼16%. Liraglutide-associated reductions in EE were partly explained by a decrease in body weight. A relative shift toward increased fat and reduced carbohydrate oxidation was observed with liraglutide. Clinicaltrials.gov ID:NCT00978393. Funding: Novo Nordisk.
Conclusion:
Gastric emptying AUC0–300 min was equivalent for liraglutide 1.8 and 3.0 mg, and for liraglutide versus placebo, whereas reductions in 1-h gastric emptying of 23% with liraglutide 3.0 mg and 13% with 1.8 mg versus placebo were observed. Liraglutide 3.0 mg improved postprandial glycemia to a greater extent than liraglutide 1.8 mg. Liraglutide-induced weight loss appears to be mediated by reduced appetite and energy intake rather than increased EE.
doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.162
PMCID: PMC4052428  PMID: 23999198
postprandial glucose; energy intake; energy expenditure; substrate oxidation; weight management
22.  Efficacy of Etoricoxib, Celecoxib, Lumiracoxib, Non-Selective NSAIDs, and Acetaminophen in Osteoarthritis: A Mixed Treatment Comparison 
Objective:
To compare the efficacy of etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, celecoxib, non-selective (ns) NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA)
Methods:
Randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the effects of acetaminophen 4000mg, diclofenac 150mg, naproxen 1000mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, celecoxib 100-400mg, lumiracoxib 100-400mg, and etoricoxib 30-60mg with treatment duration of at least two weeks were identified with a systematic literature search. The endpoints of interest were pain, physical function and patient global assessment of disease status (PGADS). Pain and physical function reported on different scales (VAS or LIKERT) were translated into effect sizes (ES). An ES 0.2 - 0.5 was defined as a “small” treatment effect, whereas ES of 0.5 – 0.8 and > 0.8 were defined as “moderate” and “large”, respectively. A negative effect indicated superior effects of the treatment group compared to the control group. Results of all trials were analyzed simultaneously with a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison.
Results:
There is a >95% probability that etoricoxib (30 or 60mg) shows the greatest improvement in pain and physical function of all interventions compared. ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.66 (95% Credible Interval -0.83; -0.49), -0.32 (-0.50; -0.14), -0.25 (-0.53; 0.03), and -0.17 (-0.41; 0.08), respectively. Regarding physical functioning, ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.61 (-0.76; -0.46), -0.27 (-0.43; -0.10), -0.20 (-0.47; 0.07), and -0.09 (- 0.33; 0.14) respectively. The greatest improvements in PGADS were expected with either etoricoxib or diclofenac.
Conclusion:
The current study estimated the efficacy of acetaminophen, nsNSAIDs, and COX-2 selective NSAIDs in OA and found that etoricoxib 30 mg is likely to result in the greatest improvements in pain and physical function. Differences in PGADS between interventions were smaller.
doi:10.2174/1874312901206010006
PMCID: PMC3349945  PMID: 22582102
Acetaminophen; Bayesian; celecoxib; etoricoxib; lumiracoxib; NSAIDs; osteoarthritis; meta-analysis.
23.  Greater Response to Placebo in Children Than in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Drug-Resistant Partial Epilepsy 
PLoS Medicine  2008;5(8):e166.
Background
Despite guidelines establishing the need to perform comprehensive paediatric drug development programs, pivotal trials in children with epilepsy have been completed mostly in Phase IV as a postapproval replication of adult data. However, it has been shown that the treatment response in children can differ from that in adults. It has not been investigated whether differences in drug effect between adults and children might occur in the treatment of drug-resistant partial epilepsy, although such differences may have a substantial impact on the design and results of paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods and Findings
Three electronic databases were searched for RCTs investigating any antiepileptic drug (AED) in the add-on treatment of drug-resistant partial epilepsy in both children and adults. The treatment effect was compared between the two age groups using the ratio of the relative risk (RR) of the 50% responder rate between active AEDs treatment and placebo groups, as well as meta-regression. Differences in the response to placebo and to active treatment were searched using logistic regression. A comparable approach was used for analysing secondary endpoints, including seizure-free rate, total and adverse events-related withdrawal rates, and withdrawal rate for seizure aggravation. Five AEDs were evaluated in both adults and children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy in 32 RCTs. The treatment effect was significantly lower in children than in adults (RR ratio: 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.89]; p = 0.02 by meta-regression). This difference was related to an age-dependent variation in the response to placebo, with a higher rate in children than in adults (19% versus 9.9%, p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed in the response to active treatment (37.2% versus 30.4%, p = 0.364). The relative risk of the total withdrawal rate was also significantly lower in children than in adults (RR ratio: 0.65 [95% CI 0.43–0.98], p = 0.004 by metaregression), due to higher withdrawal rate for seizure aggravation in children (5.6%) than in adults (0.7%) receiving placebo (p < 0.001). Finally, there was no significant difference in the seizure-free rate between adult and paediatric studies.
Conclusions
Children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy receiving placebo in double-blind RCTs demonstrated significantly greater 50% responder rate than adults, probably reflecting increased placebo and regression to the mean effects. Paediatric clinical trial designs should account for these age-dependent variations of the response to placebo to reduce the risk of an underestimated sample size that could result in falsely negative trials.
In a systematic review of antiepileptic drugs, Philippe Ryvlin and colleagues find that children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy enrolled in trials seem to have a greater response to placebo than adults enrolled in such trials.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Whenever an adult is given a drug to treat a specific condition, that drug will have been tested in “randomized controlled trials” (RCTs). In RCTs, a drug's effects are compared to those of another drug for the same condition (or to a placebo, dummy drug) by giving groups of adult patients the different treatments and measuring how well each drug deals with the condition and whether it has any other effects on the patients' health. However, many drugs given to children have only been tested in adults, the assumption being that children can safely take the same drugs as adults provided the dose is scaled down. This approach to treatment is generally taken in epilepsy, a common brain disorder in children in which disruptions in the electrical activity of part (partial epilepsy) or all (generalized epilepsy) of the brain cause seizures. The symptoms of epilepsy depend on which part of the brain is disrupted and can include abnormal sensations, loss of consciousness, or convulsions. Most but not all patients can be successfully treated with antiepileptic drugs, which reduce or stop the occurrence of seizures.
Why Was This Study Done?
It is increasingly clear that children and adults respond differently to many drugs, including antiepileptic drugs. For example, children often break down drugs differently from adults, so a safe dose for an adult may be fatal to a child even after scaling down for body size, or it may be ineffective because of quicker clearance from the child's body. Consequently, regulatory bodies around the world now require comprehensive drug development programs in children as well as in adults. However, for pediatric trials to yield useful results, the general differences in the treatment response between children and adults must first be determined and then allowed for in the design of pediatric RCTs. In this study, the researchers investigate whether there is any evidence in published RCTs for age-dependent differences in the response to antiepileptic drugs in drug-resistant partial epilepsy.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers searched the literature for reports of RCTs on the effects of antiepileptic drugs in the add-on treatment of drug-resistant partial epilepsy in children and in adults—that is, trials that compared the effects of giving an additional antiepileptic drug with those of giving a placebo by asking what fraction of patients given each treatment had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency during the treatment period compared to a baseline period (the “50% responder rate”). This “systematic review” yielded 32 RCTs, including five pediatric RCTs. The researchers then compared the treatment effect (the ratio of the 50% responder rate in the treatment arm to the placebo arm) in the two age groups using a statistical approach called “meta-analysis” to pool the results of these studies. The treatment effect, they report, was significantly lower in children than in adults. Further analysis indicated that this difference was because more children than adults responded to the placebo. Nearly 1 in 5 children had a 50% reduction in seizure rate when given a placebo compared to only 1 in 10 adults. About a third of both children and adults had a 50% reduction in seizure rate when given antiepileptic drugs.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings, although limited by the small number of pediatric trials done so far, suggest that children with drug-resistant partial epilepsy respond more strongly in RCTs to placebo than adults. Although additional studies need to be done to find an explanation for this observation and to discover whether anything similar occurs in other conditions, this difference between children and adults should be taken into account in the design of future pediatric trials on the effects of antiepileptic drugs, and possibly drugs for other conditions. Specifically, to reduce the risk of false-negative results, this finding suggests that it might be necessary to increase the size of future pediatric trials to ensure that the trials have enough power to discover effects of the drugs tested, if they exist.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050166.
This study is further discussed in a PLoS Medicine Perspective by Terry Klassen and colleagues
The European Medicines Agency provides information about the regulation of medicines for children in Europe
The US Food and Drug Administration Office of Pediatric Therapeutics provides similar information for the US
The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency also provides information on why medicines need to be tested in children
The MedlinePlus encyclopedia has a page on epilepsy (in English and Spanish)
The US National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the UK National Health Service Direct health encyclopedia both provide information on epilepsy for patients (in several languages)
Neuroscience for Kids is an educational Web site prepared by Eric Chudler (University of Washington, Seattle, US) that includes information on epilepsy and a list of links to epilepsy organizations (mainly in English but some sections in other languages as well)
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050166
PMCID: PMC2504483  PMID: 18700812
24.  Effects of acetaminophen on adverse effects of influenza vaccination in health care workers. 
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of acetaminophen on the incidence of adverse effects to, and the immunogenicity of, whole-virus influenza vaccine in health care workers. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Health Sciences Centre, an acute care teaching hospital in Winnipeg. PARTICIPANTS: Of 474 hospital personnel who agreed to undergo influenza vaccination during the 1990-91 season 262 volunteered to participate in the study. INTERVENTIONS: A dose of 0.5 mL of inactivated trivalent whole-virus influenza vaccine was injected into the deltoid muscle. Volunteers were randomly assigned to ingest two capsules of acetaminophen in a half dose (162.5 mg per capsule) or a full dose (325 mg per capsule) or two identical placebo capsules. Capsules were to be taken at vaccination and at 4, 8 and 12 hours afterward. Subjects were asked to answer questions regarding six symptoms in a diary for the 3 days after vaccination and to record their ingestion of the study medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of local (sore arm) and systemic (headache, fever, muscle ache, nausea and diarrhea) side effects as well as serum titres of hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody to vaccine antigens before vaccination and 2 weeks and 6 months afterward. RESULTS: A total of 87, 87 and 88 subjects received the half dose, full dose and placebo respectively; 96% returned the diaries, 83% ingested all four doses of medication, and 87% volunteered all blood samples. Compared with the placebo group the incidence of sore arm was 25% to 28% lower in the half-dose and full-dose groups respectively at 24 hours after vaccination, and the rate of nausea was 90% lower in the full-dose group. The HAI titres were similar among the groups at the three test times. CONCLUSIONS: The full dose of acetaminophen significantly reduced the incidence of sore arm and nausea without affecting the antibody response. Acetaminophen use may increase the acceptance of influenza vaccine by health care workers in whom concern about side effects is an impediment to vaccination.
PMCID: PMC1485900  PMID: 8221426
25.  Use of a fixed combination of acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen and caffeine compared with acetaminophen alone in episodic tension-type headache: meta-analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies 
Background
Most patients with episodic tension-type headache treat headache episodes with over-the-counter medication. Combination analgesics containing caffeine may be more effective and as well tolerated as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen (paracetamol) and caffeine in episodic tension-type headache using recently recommended endpoints.
Methods
Four randomized, controlled trials of identical design in 1,900 patients with episodic tension-type headache comparing acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen and caffeine vs. acetaminophen or placebo were pooled. Analysis populations were ‘all headache episodes’ and those with ‘severe pain at baseline’. Post-hoc defined primary endpoint: headache episodes pain-free at 2 h. Secondary endpoints: headache episodes pain-free at 1 h, headache response at 2 h (mild or no pain), degree of interference with daily activities.
Results
6,861 headache episodes were treated, including 2,215 severe headache episodes. The proportion of headache episodes pain-free at 2 h was significantly higher with the triple combination (28.5%) vs. acetaminophen (21.0%) and placebo (18.0%) (p < 0.0001), and similarly for those severe at baseline (20.2% vs. 12.1% and 10.8%; p ≤ 0.0003). A similar pattern of superiority was observed for secondary endpoints. The triple combination was generally well tolerated.
Conclusions
The combination of acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen and caffeine is effective and well tolerated in episodic tension-type headache, and significantly superior to acetaminophen with regard to being pain-free at 2 h, headache response at 2 h and ability to return to daily activities, even in those with pain rated severe at baseline.
doi:10.1186/1129-2377-15-76
PMCID: PMC4256978  PMID: 25406671
Acetaminophen; Acetylsalicylic acid; Caffeine; Episodic tension-type headache; Severe pain; Triple combination

Results 1-25 (1159631)