Additive analgesic effect of codeine and paracetamol can be detected in strong, but not moderate, pain after Caesarean section. Baseline pain-intensity is a determinant of assay-sensitivity in a postoperative analgesic trial. No effect of preoperative paracetamol and codeine suppositories for pain after termination of pregnancies in general anaesthesia. Evaluation of two opioid-acetaminophen combinations and placebo in postoperative oral surgery pain. Single-dose vicoprofen compared with acetaminophen with codeine and placebo in patients with acute postoperative pain after third molar extractions. 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. Codeine plus paracetamol versus paracetamol in longer-term treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip. A randomised, double-blind, multi-centre study. The additive analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen, 1000 mg, and codeine, 60 mg, in dental pain. Analysis of the analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen 1000 mg, codeine phosphate 60 mg, and the combination of acetaminophen 1000 mg and codeine phosphate 60 mg in the relief of postoperative pain. Clinical equivalence of IV paracetamol compared to IV dipyrone for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer. [Analgesic and opioid-sparing effects of intravenous paracetamol in the early period after aortocoronary bypass surgery]. Efficacy of low dose combination analgesics: acetaminophen/codeine, aspirin/butalbital/caffeine/codeine, and placebo in oral surgery pain. Analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen 1000 mg, acetaminophen 2000 mg, and the combination of acetaminophen 1000 mg and codeine phosphate 60 mg versus placebo in acute postoperative pain. Rofecoxib versus codeine/acetaminophen in postoperative dental pain: a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active comparator-controlled clinical trial. Evaluation of flurbiprofen, acetaminophen, an acetaminophen-codeine combination, and placebo in postoperative oral surgery pain. Analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) administered as a 2 g starting dose following third molar surgery. A 12-hour evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of diflunisal, acetaminophen, and acetaminophen-codeine combination, and placebo in postoperative pain. The dose-response relationship of controlled-release codeine (Codeine Contin) in chronic cancer pain. Analgesic effect of i.v. paracetamol: possible ceiling effect of paracetamol in postoperative pain. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of epidural ketamine combined with morphine for postoperative analgesia after major upper abdominal surgery. Analgesic efficacy of two ibuprofen-codeine combinations for the treatment of postepisiotomy and postoperative pain. Paracetamol versus metamizol in the treatment of postoperative pain after breast surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. A single-tablet fixed-dose combination of racemic ibuprofen/paracetamol in the management of moderate to severe postoperative dental pain in adult and adolescent patients: a multicenter, two-stage, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, factorial study. A double-blind study of diflunisal and codeine compared with codeine or diflunisal alone in postoperative pain. Lack of pre-emptive analgesic effect of (R)-ketamine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Evaluation of ketorolac, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and an acetaminophen-codeine combination in postoperative oral surgery pain. A comparison between IV paracetamol and IV metamizol for postoperative analgesia after retinal surgery. Analgesic combinations with orphenadrine in oral post-surgical pain. Double-blind parallel comparison of ketoprofen (Orudis), acetaminophen plus codeine, and placebo in postoperative pain.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled single oral dose study was done in order to examine whether codeine has an additive analgesic effect to that of paracetamol for moderate and strong postoperative pain after abdominal surgery. The maximum recommended single dose of paracetamol 1000 mg (Paracet) was compared with a combination of a submaximal dose of paracetamol 800 mg plus codeine 60 mg (Paralgin forte) and placebo for pain relief after Caesarean section in 125 patients.
                Visual analogue pain intensity score (VAS 0-100 mm) and categorical pain relief score were recorded for 6 hours after the study drug intake. The main efficacy variables analyzed were: pain intensity difference and summed pain intensity differences during the first 3 and 6 h after study drug intake, total pain relief during the first 3 and 6 h, global evaluation score at the end of the observation period, and time to rescue analgesic.
                Because of protocol violations, 17 patients were excluded from the analysis of effects. Among the 108 patients included in the analysis of analgesic effect, 49 patients had moderate baseline pain (VAS between 40 and 60 mm on a 100 mm scale), and 59 patients had strong baseline pain (VAS more than 60 mm). In patients with strong baseline pain, statistically highly significant differences were documented in efficacy variables between the active drugs and placebo and between the two active drugs. However, in patients with moderate baseline pain, no differences were found between the study drugs in any of the analgesic efficacy variables.
                This study thus confirms that codeine has additive analgesic effect to paracetamol in pain after surgery. Our results show the importance of initial pain intensity in postoperative assessment of analgesic drugs. Assay-sensitivity and test power are increased by selecting patients with sufficiently high initial pain intensity and by comparing groups of patients with identical surgery and similar demographic variables. Outpatient surgery demands rapid recovery and satisfied patients. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether rectal premedication with paracetamol and codeine would reduce the need of rescue analgesics, reduce the postoperative pain experience and result in faster eligibility for discharge. Ninety pregnant patients scheduled for day-case surgery with evacuation of the uterine cavity were randomly assigned into two groups. The paracetamol and codeine group was given a suppository with 60 mg of codeine and 800 mg of paracetamol together with standard premedication of intramuscular midazolam 0.08 mg/kg. The placebo group was given a placebo suppository and midazolam. All patients underwent the surgical procedure under general anaesthesia with alfentanil 15 microg/kg and propofol 1.5-2 mg/kg. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the postoperative pain experience as judged by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS-scale), verbal scale or the need for rescue analgesic medication with ketobemidone. Most of the patients experienced little postoperative pain with more than 70% scoring less than 20 mm on a VAS-scale from 0-100 mm at any time during the postoperative period. The paracetamol and codeine patients were significantly more sleepy at 30 min postoperatively. There were no differences between the groups in postoperative nausea or vomiting and no difference in discharge eligibility. The use of pre-operative suppository with paracetamol 800 mg and codeine 60 mg is unnecessary in this group of patients.
                Copyright 2000 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. To determine the relative analgesic potency and adverse effect liability of hydrocodone bitartrate 7.5 mg with acetaminophen 500 mg, codeine phosphate 30 mg with acetaminophen 300 mg, and placebo in the treatment of pain following oral surgery.
                Randomized, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study with self-ratings at 30 minutes and then at hourly intervals from hour 1 to hour 6.
                Private, oral surgery practice sites.
                Three hundred twenty-four outpatients with moderate or severe pain after the surgical removal of impacted third molars were selected. One was lost to follow-up and 32 did not need an analgesic; 232 patients had valid efficacy data.
                Patients were treated with a single oral dose of hydrocodone bitartrate 7.5 mg with acetaminophen 500 mg, codeine phosphate 30 mg with acetaminophen 300 mg, or placebo when they experienced steady, moderate or severe pain that, in their opinion, required an analgesic. Using a self-rating record, subjects rated their pain and its relief for 6 hours after medicating; estimates of peak and total analgesia were derived from these subjective reports.
                This study was a valid analgesic assay. Both active treatments were significantly superior to placebo for all measures of analgesic efficacy. The hydrocodone-acetaminophen combination was significantly superior to the codeine-acetaminophen combination for total pain relief and the number of evaluations with 50% relief. Both active treatments manifested an analgesic effect within 30 minutes; the effect persisted for 5 hours for the codeine combination and 6 hours for the hydrocodone combination. Adverse effects were transient, consistent with the pharmacologic profiles of opioids, and none required treatment.
                A slight advantage in analgesic efficacy was demonstrated in this single-dose study for the hydrocodone-acetaminophen combination. Repeat-dose studies, however, should be conducted to determine the clinical significance of the difference in analgesic effect of these opioid combinations. The purpose of this double-blind, randomized study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a single dose of the following medications: 2 tablets of Vicoprofen (ibuprofen 200 mg/hydrocodone 7.5 mg; Knoll Pharmaceutical Co, Mount Olive, NJ), 2 tablets ofp6 acetaminophen with codeine phosphate (acetaminophen 300 mg/codeine 30 mg), and 2 tablets of placebo in the management of moderate to severe postoperative dental pain after surgical extraction of at least one impacted mandibular third molar.
                One hundred twenty-five patients (75 women, 50 men) participated in the study. The time of first perceptible pain relief and meaningful pain relief were measured using a stopwatch technique. Pain intensity and pain relief scores were recorded using standard verbal descriptors at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 hours after dosing. At the conclusion of the study, patients completed a global evaluation for the effectiveness of the study medication.
                Both active treatments were superior to placebo for all analgesic measures. Pain relief scores were significantly better for Vicoprofen than placebo throughout the study and significantly better than for acetaminophen with codeine from 2 through 8 hours after dosing. The duration of analgesia (time to remedication) was significantly longer for Vicoprofen (median, 5.50 hours) compared with acetaminophen with codeine (median, 3.03 hours) and placebo (median, 1.00 hours). Mean global evaluation for Vicoprofen was significantly better than for placebo and acetaminophen with codeine. Overall, there were no significant differences in the adverse event profile among the 3 treatment groups.
                Vicoprofen was found to be an effective postoperative analgesic medication in the management of acute postoperative dental pain. Its total analgesic effect, duration of analgesia, and global evaluation were superior to acetaminophen with codeine and placebo in this study model. 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 200mg/paracetamol 500mg; 2 tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg/codeine 12.8mg; 2 tablets of paracetamol 500mg/codeine 15mg; or placebo. Results for the primary endpoint, the sum of the mean scores of pain relief combined with pain intensity differences over 12hours, 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 200mg/paracetamol 500mg provided highly effective analgesia that was comparable with, or superior to, other combination analgesics currently indicated for strong pain. A single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 200mg/paracetamol 500mg provides highly effective analgesia, comparable or superior to other combination analgesics indicated for strong pain.
                Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier B.V. This randomized, double-blind, multi-centre study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment for 4 weeks with codeine plus paracetamol versus paracetamol in relieving chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip. A total of 158 outclinic patients entered the study. Eighty-three patients (mean age 66 years) were treated with codeine 60 mg plus paracetamol 1 g 3 times daily, and 75 patients (mean age 67 years) with paracetamol 1 g 3 times daily. Ibuprofen 400 mg was prescribed as rescue medication. Due to an unexpected high rate of adverse drug reactions, the study was closed before the planned 400 patients had entered. Over weeks 1-4, 87%, 64%, 61% and 52% of patients in the codeine plus paracetamol group, and 38%, 31%, 22% and 29% of patients in the paracetamol group had one or more adverse drug reactions. Significantly more patients in the codeine plus paracetamol group had adverse drug reactions in each of the 4 weeks. Nausea, dizziness, vomiting and constipation were predominant adverse reactions in the codeine plus paracetamol group. During the first week of treatment, 30 patients (36%) in the codeine plus paracetamol group and 9 (12%) in the paracetamol group dropped out. As evaluated from patients completing the first week of treatment, the pain intensity during that week compared to their baseline pain was significantly lower in the codeine plus paracetamol group than in the paracetamol group. Moreover, during the first week the paracetamol group received rescue medicine significantly more frequently. In conclusion, when evaluated after 7 days of treatment, the daily addition of codeine 180 mg to paracetamol 3 g significantly reduced the intensity of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip joint. However, several adverse drug reactions, mainly of the gastrointestinal tract, and the larger number of patients withdrawing from treatment means that the addition of such doses of codeine cannot be recommended for longer-term treatment of chronic pain in elderly patients. 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. Patients who experienced pain after surgery were administered a single dose of 1 of 3 treatments: acetaminophen 1000 mg, codeine phosphate 60 mg, or a combination of these. Patients rated their pain intensity on ordinal and visual analog scales just prior to medication and at intervals thereafter for up to 5 hours. They also rated pain relief, pain half gone, and any adverse effects. Sum of pain intensity difference and total pain relief scores were analyzed using Dunnett's procedure. The drug combination was statistically superior to codeine as measured by SPID, TOTPAR, pain half gone, and time to remedication. The combination achieved better mean scores than acetaminophen on all efficacy measures, but was (marginally) statistically superior only in pain half gone. No appreciable differences in adverse effects were noted among the treatments. The difficulty of showing the analgesic efficacy of codeine in a single dose trial is discussed. To assess clinical efficacy of IV paracetamol 1 g and IV dipyrone 1 g on a 24-h dosing schedule in this randomised, double-blinded study of 40 ASA I-III (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of physical status) patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer.
                General anaesthesia using remifentanil and propofol was performed for surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, receiving infusions of paracetamol 1 g/100 mL (Para Group) or of dipyrone 1 g/100 mL (Dipy Group) 30 min before arrival in the recovery area and every 6 h up to 24 h postoperatively. All patients had unrestricted access to opioid rescue medication via an IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device.
                The primary variables for clinical equivalence were the differences between the mean values for pain scores at rest and pain scores on coughing over 30 h postoperatively. The equivalence margin was determined as +/-10 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS).
                Regarding pain scores at rest, the 90% CI of the mean differences between the treatment groups over 30 h postoperatively was found to be within the predefined equivalence margin [+7.5/-6.2], and the CI values for pain scores on coughing [+7.3/-9.0] were similar. The two groups did not differ in cumulative opioid rescue consumption (Dipy-Group 14.8 +/- 17.7 mg vs. Para Group 12.1 +/- 8.8 mg, p = 0.54) nor in piritramide loading dose (Dipy Group 0.95 +/- 2.8 mg vs. Para Group 1.3 +/- 2.8 mg, p = 0.545). Five patients in the Dipy Group experienced hypotension in contrast to none in the Para Group (p = 0.047). There were no significant between-treatment differences for other adverse events, patient satisfaction scores (p = 0.4) or quality of recovery scores (p = 0.3).
                IV paracetamol 1 g is clinically equivalent to IV dipyrone 1 g for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer. The study was to evaluate the analgesic and opioid-sparing effect of intravenous paracetamol injections in cardiosurgical patients in the early postoperative period. Adequate analgesia within the first 12-18 hours of the early postoperative period is very important for a good prognosis of the further course of pain syndrome and for the reduction of a risk for its progression to its chronic form. In early studies, propacetamol lowered morphine use after orthopedic and gynecological operations. The efficacy of paracetamol used in cardiac surgery has been little studied and the results of the studies are conflicting. The randomized, blind, placebo-controlled study included patients after aortocoronary bypass surgery, of them 22 patients received paracetamol and 23 had placebo. The test drug (perfalgan 100 ml or placebo) was intravenously injected 30 min before extubation and then every 6 hours within succeeding 18 hours. The intensity of the pain syndrome was rated by a 5-score verbal scale every 2 hours. With pain score of 2 or more, promedol was intramuscularly administered in a dose of 10 mg. Inspiratory volume was recorded before extubation and the first administration of a drug just after extubation and then every 2 hours. The baseline indices did not differ in both groups. Throughout the observation, the inspiratory volume was lower in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.012) in the reduction in the manifestations of the pain syndrome (by 81%) only just after tracheal extubation. During this period, inspiratory volume values were higher in the paracetamol group; however, a statistically significant (39%) difference between the groups in the mean values was obtained only during and 2 hours after extubation. In the perfalgan group, the mean total use of promedol was 36% less than in the placebo-group, which was statistically significant (p = 0.019). The early postoperative use of paracetamol after myocardial revascularization reduces the intake of opioids and diminishes the intensity of the pain syndrome within the first hours after extubation, which promotes a higher thoracic excursion, as confirmed by a statistically significant increase in the maximum inspiratory capacity. A double-blind, randomized, single-dose study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of two commonly prescribed combination analgesic products to placebo. The combinations were acetaminophen 300 mg/codeine 30 mg(†), and aspirin 325 mg/butalbital 50 mg/caffeine 40 mg/codeine 30 mg(††). One hundred twenty-three (123) oral surgery outpatients took study medications when their pain became moderate to severe and recorded the levels of pain intensity, pain relief, anxiety and relaxation at 30 minutes and hourly for 6 hours after dosing. Remedication was permitted if study medications did not provide adequate pain relief. Time to remedication, and the number of observations with 50% or better relief, were noted as were any side effects. An overall evaluation was obtained from each patient. Results of the study showed that the aspirin/butalbital/caffeine/codeine combination was significantly more effective than placebo for total pain relief, peak relief and global evaluation. While the acetaminophen/codeine combination was numerically superior to placebo, it achieved statistical significance only for global evaluation. The aspirin/butalbital/caffeine/codeine combination was numerically superior to acetaminophen/codeine for every measure of analgesic efficacy but the differences did not achieve statistical significance. Both active treatment groups experienced significantly less total anxiety than did the placebo group. Only 11 patients reported mild, transient adverse effects; the most common was drowsiness. The adverse effects occurred equally among the three treatment groups. In this study, the aspirin/butalbital/caffeine/codeine combination was significantly superior to placebo and somewhat better than acetaminophen/codeine. Acetaminophen (APAP) 1000 mg, APAP 2000 mg, the combination of APAP 1000 mg plus codeine phosphate 60 mg (APAPCOD), and placebo (PBO) were compared in a 6-hour, randomized, single-dose, double-blind, parallel-group analgesic trial. All active treatments were statistically superior (p less than 0.05) to placebo for 4 hours after medication with respect to pain intensity (PI) and pain intensity difference (PID), and up to 3 hours regarding pain relief (PAR). The combination scored better than all other treatments on the summary analgesic efficacy measures sum PI (SUMPI), sum PID (SPID), and total PAR (TOTPAR). The combination was statistically superior to APAP 1000 mg on SUMPI, TOTPAR and maximum PAR (MAXPAR). Acetaminophen 2000 mg showed marginal numerical superiority over 1000 mg for SUMPI, but was not statistically superior for any summary efficacy measure. The 2000-mg dose was numerically inferior to APAPCOD for every summary efficacy measure and statistically inferior regarding SPID and MAXPAR. We concluded that codeine 60 mg added to acetaminophen 1000 mg offers analgesic advantages, and acetaminophen reaches an analgesic ceiling effect at 1000 mg using the dental pain model. In recent studies of acute pain and primary dysmenorrhea, rofecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that selectively targets the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme, was found to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium.
                The purpose of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy of a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with the combination of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg in a model of postsurgical dental pain.
                In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars, at least 1 of which was a mandibular impaction, were randomized to receive placebo, rofecoxib 50 mg, or codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg. Patient evaluations of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments were recorded throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The 2-stopwatch method was used to determine time to confirmed perceptible pain relief. The primary end point assessing overall analgesic effect was total pain relief over 6 hours (TOPAR6). Secondary end points were patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) at 6 hours, onset of analgesia, peak analgesic effect, and duration of analgesia.
                A total of 393 patients were enrolled; 182 received rofecoxib, 180 received codeine/acetaminophen, and 31 received placebo. The overall analgesic effect of rofecoxib 50 mg was greater than that of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg for TOPAR6 (12.4 vs 7.0; P < 0.001) and PGART at 6 hours (P < 0.001). The onset of analgesic effect was similar for rofecoxib and codeine/acetaminophen. Peak analgesic effect as measured by peak pain relief scores during the first 6 hours was significantly greater in the rofecoxib group compared with the codeine/acetaminophen group (P < 0.001), as was the duration of analgesic effect measured by the time to rescue analgesia (9.6 hours vs 2.3 hours, P < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 33.0%, 46.1%, and 32.3% of patients treated with rofecoxib, codeine/acetaminophen, and placebo, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (6.0%, 25.0%, and 9.7%, respectively) and vomiting (3.8%, 18.3%, and 6.5%, respectively). Significantly more patients in the codeine/acetaminophen group than in the rofecoxib group experienced adverse events overall (P < 0.050) and nausea in particular (P < 0.001).
                In this study of moderate to severe postoperative dental pain, the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was greater than that of codeine/acetaminophen, with a lower incidence of adverse events and nausea. Eighty-eight outpatients with postoperative pain after the surgical removal of impacted third molars were randomly assigned, on a double-blind basis, to receive a single, oral dose of flurbiprofen 100 mg, acetaminophen 600 mg, a combination of acetaminophen 600 mg with codeine 60 mg, or placebo. Using a self-rating record, subjects rated their pain and its relief hourly for 12 hours after medicating. Estimates of sum of pain intensity differences, peak pain intensity differences, total relief, peak relief, and hours of 50% relief were derived from these subjective reports. Flurbiprofen and the acetaminophen-codeine combination were significantly superior to placebo for every measure of total and peak analgesia and significantly superior to acetaminophen alone for most measures of efficacy. Based on the 12-hour data, acetaminophen alone did not differ significantly from placebo; however, it was superior to placebo for measures of total effect based on the 4-hour data. Flurbiprofen was significantly superior to the acetaminophen codeine combination with respect to the number of hours until remedication. All medications had manifested an effect by hour 1; analgesia persisted for 12 hours for flurbiprofen, 6 hours for acetaminophen-codeine, and 3 hours for acetaminophen alone. The frequency of adverse effects was similar for the active medications. The recommended dose for intravenous (IV) paracetamol injection in adults is 1g, however pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings suggest that a better analgesia could be obtained with a 2 g starting dose.
                A single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-parallel group study was performed to demonstrate the analgesic efficacy and safety of IV paracetamol 2 g. Following third molar surgery, patients reporting moderate to severe pain received a single 15-min infusion of either IV paracetamol 2 g, IV paracetamol 1g or placebo. Efficacy and safety were evaluated over 8 h. Laboratory tests were performed before and 48 h after drug administration.
                Two hundred and ninety seven patients (132 = IV paracetamol 2g; 132 = IV paracetamol 1g; 33 = placebo) were randomised and completed the study. The summed pain relief over 6h (TOTPAR6) was significantly superior with IV paracetamol 2 g as compared to IV paracetamol 1g and placebo (p < 0.0001). Pain relief scores of IV paracetamol 2g were significantly superior to IV paracetamol 1g and to placebo from T30' to T8h (p < 0.0001). Median duration of analgesia was significantly longer following IV paracetamol 2 g compared to IV paracetamol 1g and placebo (p < 0.0001). Adverse events occurred with the same frequency in the 3 treatment groups. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed for vital signs or laboratory tests.
                The analgesic efficacy of a 2 g starting dose of IV paracetamol was superior over the recommended dose of 1g in terms of magnitude and duration of analgesic effect for postoperative pain following third molar surgery, with no significant difference between groups regarding safety. The analgesic efficacy of single 500 and 1,000 mg doses of diflunisal, a new nonsteroidal antiinflammatory analgesic, was compared in a double-blind study with acetaminophen 600 mg, the combination of acetaminophen 600 mg with codeine 60 mg, and placebo in 132 inpatients with postoperative pain. Using a self-rating record, patients rated their pain and its relief hourly for up to 12 hours after medication. Diflunisal 500 and 1,000 mg were significantly superior to placebo for every measure of total and peak analgesia, and a significant analgesic effect persisted for 8 hours. Acetaminophen alone and the acetaminophen-codeine combination were significantly superior to placebo for most measures of analgesia, and their effects were significant for 4 and 5 hours respectively. Differences among the active medications were not statistically significant for measures of total or peak analgesia. The improved pain control provided by regular dosing of opioid analgesics in patients with severe cancer pain has been well established. However, the treatment of mild-to-moderate cancer pain is often limited to "as needed" dosing with fixed combinations of codeine or oxycodone plus a nonopioid analgesic, which do not allow optimal titration of the individual components. This randomized double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of controlled-release codeine (Codeine Contin) in patients with cancer pain, and to estimate its dose equivalence to a standard combination of acetaminophen plus codeine. Twenty-four patients with at least moderate cancer pain were randomized to Codeine Contin 100, 200, or 300 mg every 12 hr or acetaminophen plus codeine (600 mg/60 mg) every 6 hr. On days 1 and 4 of dosing, pain intensity and pain relief were assessed hourly for 12 hr. The sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) from baseline and the total pain relief (TOTPAR) scores demonstrated a dose-response relationship for Codeine Contin on days 1 and 4 that was statistically significant on day 1 and suggested greater analgesic efficacy on day 4, compared with day 1. Codeine Contin 150 mg every 12 hr was estimated to be equianalgesic to acetaminophen plus codeine (600 mg/60 mg) given every 6 hr. Because a similar equivalence was also demonstrated from analysis of adverse event data, it is concluded that Codeine Contin 150 mg produces analgesia and a side-effect profile similar to a 40% lower dose of codeine provided by the combination.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Despite the widespread use of paracetamol for many years, the analgesic serum concentrations of paracetamol are unknown. Therefore the correlation between serum paracetamol concentrations and the analgesic effect was studied.
                Sixty-four women undergoing laparoscopic sterilization were included in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Patients were given i.v. propacetamol 40 mg kg(-1) (group H), 20 mg kg(-1) (group I), 10 mg kg(-1) (group L) or placebo after surgery. Alfentanil was available via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) during the 4-h postoperative study period. The patients' self-reported pain was registered on the visual analog scale (VAS). A pharmacokinetic model was fitted to the paracetamol data.
                One to 3 h after injection of propacetamol the alfentanil consumption was significantly (P = 0.01-0.04) higher in the placebo group compared with groups H, I, and L receiving propacetamol. There were no significant differences between the amounts of alfentanil consumed in groups H, I, and L. Initial VAS-scores were moderate (5.4-6.2), and declined significantly (P < 0.0001) over time, with no difference between groups. Paracetamol followed an open two-compartment model with i.v. administration and first order elimination. The estimated concentrations immediately (t = 0) after injection were 56 mg l(-1) (H), 28 mg l(-1) (I) and 14 mg l(-1) (L).
                We showed a significant opioid-sparing effect of paracetamol in the immediate postoperative period. Pharmacokinetic data were in accordance with other studies. Our results suggest that a ceiling effect of paracetamol may be present at i.v. doses of 5 mg kg(-1), i.e. a serum concentration of 14 mg l(-1), which is a lower dose than previously suggested.
                Copyright Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 47 (2003) To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of epidural ketamine and morphine compared with epidural morphine alone for postoperative pain relief following major upper abdominal surgery.
                Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.
                Tertiary care referral and teaching hospital.
                46 ASA physical status I and II patients who underwent major upper abdominal procedures.
                Patients were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups: patients in Group 1 received epidural morphine 50 microg/kg whereas patients in Group 2 received epidural ketamine 1 mg/kg combined with 50 microg/kg of morphine postoperatively.
                A blinded observer using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain assessment followed up patients for 48 hours postoperatively. Top-up dose of epidural morphine was provided when VAS was higher than 4. Analgesic requirements and side effects were compared between the two groups.
                Only 40 patients completed the study. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, weight, duration, or type of surgical procedure or intraoperative opioid requirements. Onset of analgesia was faster (p < 0.001) in Group 2 (11 min) than in Group 1 patients (25 min). The time for first requirement of analgesia was significantly (p < 0.01) longer (19.8 +/- 9.8 hours) in Group 2 patients than Group 1 (12.8 +/- 6.2 hours). Total number of supplemental doses of epidural morphine required in the first 48 hours postoperatively was also significantly less (p < 0.005) in Group 2 compared to Group 1. Patients in Group 2 had higher sedation scores than Group I patients for the first 2 hours postoperatively. None of the patients in either group developed hallucinations or respiratory depression. Other side effects such as pruritus, nausea, and vomiting were also similar in both groups.
                The addition of epidural ketamine 1 mg/kg to morphine 50 microg/kg improved analgesia after major upper abdominal surgery without increasing side effects. Our purpose was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of single oral doses of the combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 60 mg and the combination of ibuprofen 200 mg plus codeine 30 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg alone, codeine sulfate 60 mg alone, and placebo. One hundred ninety-five patients with severe pain resulting from episiotomy, cesarean section, or gynecologic surgery completed a randomized, double-blind, stratified, parallel-group study. Patients were observed during a 4-hour period after medication. Based on the sum of the pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR), and most of the hourly direct measures of pain and relief, both doses of the combination and ibuprofen 400 mg alone were statistically superior to placebo. Codeine 60 mg was statistically superior to placebo based on TOTPAR, the global ratings, and a few hourly measures. The mean effect of the combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 60 mg was significantly superior to the mean effect of ibuprofen 400 mg alone 1/2, 1, and 2 hours after medication and to the mean effect of ibuprofen 400 mg alone and codeine 60 mg alone for SPID, TOTPAR, and other measures as well. The low-dose combination was significantly more effective than codeine 60 mg for a few hourly measures but was not significantly superior to ibuprofen 400 mg. Based on these findings it appears that the combination of ibuprofen 400 mg plus codeine 60 mg, particularly in the first few hours after medication, is more efficacious than its constituents. Intravenously administered paracetamol is an effective analgesic in postoperative pain management. However, there is a lack of data on the effect of intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol on pain following soft tissue surgery.
                Eighty-seven patients undergoing elective breast surgery with total i.v. anaesthesia (propofol/remifentanil) were randomized to three groups. Group para received 1 g i.v. paracetamol 20 min before and 4, 10 and 16 h after the end of the operation. Group meta and plac received 1 g i.v. metamizol or placebo, respectively, scheduled at the same time points. All patients had access to i.v. morphine on demand to achieve adequate pain relief.
                No significant difference in total morphine consumption between groups was detectable. The proportion of patients who did not receive any morphine in the postoperative period was significantly higher in group para (42%) than in group plac (4%). Ambulation was significantly (P < 0.05) earlier in group para (4.0 +/- 0.2 h) than in groups meta (4.6 +/- 0.2 h) and plac (5.5 +/- 1.0 h). No differences were observed between groups meta and plac. There were no differences between groups with regard to incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or changes in vigilance.
                Neither i.v. paracetamol nor i.v. metamizol provided a significant reduction in total postoperative morphine consumption compared with placebo in the management of postoperative pain after elective breast surgery. Administration of paracetamol resulted in a significant reduction in the number of patients needing opioid analgesics to achieve adequate postoperative pain relief. The combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol may confer analgesic benefits over monotherapy with either agent. In a previous study, an ibuprofen/paracetamol combination provided significantly better analgesic efficacy than comparable doses of ibuprofen or paracetamol alone in patients experiencing moderate to severe acute postoperative pain after extraction of impacted third molars.
                This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of 3 doses of a single-tablet fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ibuprofen and paracetamol (ibuprofen/paracetamol doses of 100 mg/250 mg, 200 mg/500 mg, and 400 mg/1000 mg) with comparable doses of ibuprofen (200 or 400 mg) monotherapy, paracetamol (500 or 1000 mg) monotherapy, and placebo in the 8 hours after surgical removal of 3 to 4 impacted third molars (stage 1) and with placebo over the next 72 hours (stage 2).
                This was a multicenter, 2-stage, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, factorial study. Male or female outpatients were eligible for the study if they were aged >or=16 years, were referred for surgical removal of at least 3 impacted third molars (2 of which had to be mandibular impacted molars), and gave written informed consent. In stage 1, patients were randomly assigned to ibuprofen 200 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol 500 mg, paracetamol 1000 mg, FDC ibuprofen 100 mg/paracetamol 250 mg, FDC ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg, FDC ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg, or placebo. In stage 2, patients who had been taking FDC therapy or placebo continued the same treatment, whereas those taking monotherapy received FDC therapy, incorporating the same dose of active monotherapy from stage 1. First-line rescue medication (hydrocodone 7.5 mg and paracetamol 500 mg) was available at any time after dosing; however, in stage 1, any patient who required rescue medication within 60 minutes of receipt of study medication was considered a "dropout" from therapy, and, in stage 2, patients who required >2 doses of first-line rescue medication in a 24-hour period were considered treatment failures. In stage 1, the primary efficacy end points were the sum of pain relief and pain intensity differences over an 8-hour follow-up period (SPRID8) and the pain relief and pain intensity difference scores at each time point (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420, and 480 minutes after dosing). Several secondary variables were also measured, including the patient's global assessment of the study medication. The 2-stopwatch method was used for measures of perceptible and meaningful pain relief. In stage 2, the primary efficacy end point was the number of completed 24-hour periods (as 0, 1, 2, or 3) in which the patient required no more than one dose of rescue medication and rated the treatment as "good," "very good," or "excellent." The tolerability of study medications was assessed in relation to the frequency, nature, and severity of adverse events (AEs), as well as their relationship to study medication; vital signs were also measured. AEs were assessed at 8 hours after dosing in stage 1, at 72 hours after dosing in stage 2, and at the follow-up visit (7-10 days after surgery); in addition, patients were instructed to report any AE that occurred between scheduled assessments.
                Of 735 patients randomly assigned in stage 1, a total of 715 (97.3%) entered and 678 (92.2%) completed stage 2. Most patients were female (62.6% [460/735]) and white (91.3% [671/735]); the mean (SD) age was 20.3 (3.5) years and the mean weight was 69.7 (15.7) kg. The mean total impaction score was 11.1 (1.4), and the mean baseline pain score on the visual analog scale was 76.9 (12.0). Overall, 422 of 735 patients (57.4%) reported severe pain at baseline and 313 of 735 (42.6%) reported moderate pain. For the primary efficacy end point (SPRID8), FDC ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg was significantly more effective than ibuprofen 400 mg (P = 0.02) and paracetamol 1000 mg (P < 0.001) in the immediate postoperative period (stage 1), and FDC ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg was significantly more effective than ibuprofen 200 mg (P < 0.001) and paracetamol 500 mg (P < 0.001). The FDC ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg was also significantly more effective than paracetamol 1000 mg (P < 0.001), but failed to reach statistical significance in comparison with ibuprofen 400 mg. Continued postoperative therapy with all 3 FDCs on an as-needed basis was significantly more effective than placebo during the subsequent 72 hours (all, P < 0.001). During stage 1, rescue medication was required by 53 of 73 (72.6%), 29 of 75 (38.7%), 21 of 74 (28.4%), 56 of 76 (73.7%), and 51 of 74 (68.9%) patients in the placebo group and the ibuprofen 200-mg, ibuprofen 400-mg, paracetamol 500-mg, and paracetamol 1000-mg treatment groups, respectively. In the FDC treatment groups, the need for rescue medication included 27 of 71 (38.0%), 40 of 143 (28.0%), and 32 of 149 (21.5%) patients in the ibuprofen 100-mg/paracetamol 250-mg, ibuprofen 200-mg/paracetamol 500-mg, and ibuprofen 400-mg/paracetamol 1000-mg groups, respectively. The rates of treatment-related AEs between the first and second doses of study medication were significantly lower for FDC ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg (8/149 patients [5.4%]) than for placebo (14/73 [19.2%]; P < 0.01) and paracetamol 1000 mg (10/74 [13.5%]; P < 0.05); and also lower for FDC ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg (9/143 [6.3%]) compared with ibuprofen 200 mg (12/75 [16.0%]; P < 0.05) and paracetamol 500 mg (17/76 [22.4%]; P < 0.001).
                FDC ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg were significantly more effective in this population than were comparable doses of ibuprofen or paracetamol alone in moderate to severe acute dental pain and were significantly more effective than placebo in providing sustained pain relief. 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. This study evaluated the pre-emptive analgesic effect of intravenous (i.v.) (R)-ketamine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. (R)-ketamine was used due to the lower incidence of side-effects.
                Sixty patients who underwent surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to 3 groups and studied in a double-blind manner. Two i.v. injections were administered: one after induction of anesthesia, approximately 3 min before surgery, and one after surgery. The placebo group (PLA, n = 20) received saline in both injections. The preoperative group (PRE, n = 20) received (R)-ketamine 1 mg/kg and then saline. The postoperative group (POST, n = 20) received saline and then (R)-ketamine 1 mg/kg. Postoperatively, the patients used a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump. Pain was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS) at 30 min and every hour for 4 h and with a verbal rating scale (VRS) at 24 h and after 7 days.
                There were no occurrence of side-effects from (R)-ketamine. VAS and VRS at 1, 2, 3, and 4 h postoperatively showed no statistical differences. In the POST group, extubation was delayed and pain score (VAS) at 30 min postoperatively was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the two other groups. There were no statistical differences in meperidine consumption during the first 4 h postoperatively and no differences in consumption of analgesics at 24 h and 7 days.
                In this study a 1 mg/kg dose of (R)-ketamine given at the end of surgery exerted a short-lasting hypnotic and analgesic effect. The same dose given preoperatively did not show postoperative analgesic effect or pre-emptive effect. Two-hundred six outpatients with postoperative pain after the surgical removal of impacted third molars were randomly assigned on a double-blind basis to receive oral doses of ketorolac tromethamine 10 and 20 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, acetaminophen 600 mg, a combination of acetaminophen 600 mg plus codeine 60 mg, or placebo. Using a self-rating record, subjects rated their pain and its relief hourly for 6 hours after medicating. All active medications were significantly superior to placebo. Analgesia was similar for ketorolac 10 and 20 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg; however, these treatments were superior to acetaminophen alone and the acetaminophen-codeine combination. The analgesic effect of each active medication was significant by hour 1 and persisted for 5-6 hours. The data suggest a plateau in ketorolac's analgesic efficacy at the 10-mg level. Repeat-dose data indicated that on the day of surgery ketorolac 10 and 20 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg were superior to acetaminophen 600 mg; ketorolac 20 mg was also superior to acetaminophen-codeine. Differences among active medications were not significant when data for the entire postoperative period (days 0-6) were evaluated. The frequency of adverse effects was similar for the active medications. To assess clinical efficacy of IV paracetamol 1 g and IV metamizol 1 IV metamizol 1 g on a 24-h dosing schedule in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of 38 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing retinal surgery.
                General anaesthesia using remifentanil, propofol, and desflurane was performed for surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to three groups, receiving infusions of paracetamol 1 g/100 mL (Para Group), of metamizol 1 g/100 mL (Meta Group), or of 100 mL of saline solution as placebo control (Plac Group) 30 min before arrival in the recovery area and every 6 h up to 24 h postoperatively. All patients had unrestricted access to intravenous opioid rescue medication.
                The primary efficacy variables were pain scores at rest over 30 h postoperatively analysed by using repeated ANOVA measurement. Secondary efficacy variables were pain scores on coughing, also analysed by repeated ANOVA measurement.
                Five patients in the Plac Group and one patient in the Meta Group interrupted the study protocol. Regarding pain scores at rest, Mauchly-test of sphericity was significant (p = 0.03). For the p time effects a significant result was detected (p < 0.001). The main effect between the three treatment groups was significantly different (p = 0.01). The Bonferroni adjusted pair wise comparisons between p the Plac Group and the Para Group showed a significant difference in favour of IV paracetamol (p = 0.024; mean difference 14.8; p 95% CI 1.6-28.0), between the Plac Group and the Meta Group in favour of IV metamizol (p = 0.025; mean difference 14.4; 95% CI p 1.5-27.4), and no significant difference between the Para Group and the Meta Group (p = 1.0; mean difference 0.4; 95% CI-12.8 to 13.6). Pain scores on coughing showed a significant different main effect between the three treatment groups (p = 0.022). The Bonferroni adjusted pair wise comparisons between the Plac Group and the Para Group showed a significant difference in favour of IV paracetamol (p = 0.032; mean difference 17.9; 95% CI 1.3-34.6), a p difference, though not reaching statistical significance, in favour of IV metamizol between the Plac Group and the Meta Group (p = 0.081; p mean difference 15.0; 95% CI -1.4 to 31.4), and no significant difference between the Para Group and the Meta Group (p = 1.0; p mean difference 2.9; 95% CI -13.8 6 to 19.6). None of the patients experienced itching; one patient in the Meta Group developed a mild erythema. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of nausea (Plac vs. Para Group: p = 0.94, Plac vs. Meta Group: p = 0.98, Para vs Meta Group: p = 0.95) or vomiting (Plac vs. Para Group: p = 0.73, Plac vs. Meta Group: p = 0.85, Para vs Meta Group: p = 0.86) between the groups. Patients in the Plac Group experienced significantly more often sedation than patients in the Meta Group (p = 0.049). There was a trend of higher sedation in the Plac Group than in the Para Group, which did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was no difference in sedation between the Meta and the Para Groups (p = 0.84).
                IV paracetamol 1 g has a similar analgesic potency as IV metamizol 1 g for postoperative analgesia after retinal surgery. Two hundred male and female patients underwent a variety of oral surgical procedures and were treated afterwards in four test groups. They took a combination of orphenadrine (25 mg) and acetaminophen (325 mg), either drug alone, or placebo. A double-blind study design was used. All patients had moderately severe baseline pain intensity; post-treatment pain relief was recorded at 30 minutes, one, two, four and six hours. A back-up analgesic (codeine-ASA) was made available if needed. Pain intensity difference (PID) and sums of pain intensity difference (SPID) were calculated using established analgesic study techniques. Statistical analyses indicated better analgesic efficacy in both PID and SPID scores for the orphenadrine-acetaminophen combination over the three other treatments. This was evident at 30 minutes and continued through the sixth hour. Each active drug, in turn, was also significantly better throughout than placebo for pain relief. Sub-groups in each treatment regimen required additional pain relief prior to six hours, with significantly more placebo than orphenadrine-acetaminophen patients needing remedication. Side-effect incidence was very low and randomly distributed among the four groups. One hundred sixty-one patients with postoperative pain were treated at a single center in a double-blind, randomized, parallel study designed to compare the efficacy and safety of single oral doses of ketoprofen (50 and 150 mg), an acetaminophen (650 mg) plus codeine (60 mg) combination, and placebo. From 1 through 4 hours after administration of the study drugs, the mean summed pain intensity difference (SPID) and time-weighted total pain relief (TOPAR) scores for the three active treatments generally were significantly (P less than 0.05) higher than those for placebo but not significantly different from each other. At the 6-hour evaluation, the ketoprofen groups, but not the acetaminophen-codeine group, had higher (P less than 0.05) mean SPID and TOPAR scores than the placebo group, as a result of a shorter duration of pain relief in the acetaminophen-codeine group. The 6-hour TOPAR scores were significantly (P less than 0.05) higher for both ketoprofen groups than for the acetaminophen-codeine group; the ketoprofen 150 mg group also had significantly (P less than 0.05) higher mean 6-hour SPID and global subjective assessment scores. As a result of a higher frequency of somnolence, there was a significantly (P less than 0.05) greater incidence of central nervous system adverse drug reactions among patients treated with acetaminophen plus codeine than among those treated with 150 mg of ketoprofen. These results indicate that the analgesic efficacy of both 50 and 150 mg doses of ketoprofen equals that of acetaminophen 650 mg plus codeine 60 mg and the duration of the analgesic effect of ketoprofen is significantly longer.
This update confirms previous findings that combining paracetamol with codeine provided clinically useful levels of pain relief in about 50% of patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain, compared with under 20% with placebo. New information for remedication shows that the combination extended the duration of analgesia by about one hour compared to treatment with the same dose of paracetamol alone. At higher doses, more participants experienced adequate pain relief, but the amount of information available for the 1000 mg paracetamol plus 60 mg codeine dose was small, and based on limited information.