Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination oxycodone and acetaminophen in the treatment of postoperative obstetric or gynecologic pain

Effect of a Single Dose of Oral Opioid and Nonopioid Analgesics on Acute Extremity Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The choice of analgesic to treat acute pain in the emergency department (ED) lacks a clear evidence base. The combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen (paracetamol) may represent a viable nonopioid alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of 4 oral analgesics.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 urban EDs in the Bronx, New York, that included 416 patients aged 21 to 64 years with moderate to severe acute extremity pain enrolled from July 2015 to August 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants (104 per each combination analgesic group) received 400 mg of ibuprofen and 1000 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of oxycodone and 325 mg of acetaminophen; 5 mg of hydrocodone and 300 mg of acetaminophen; or 30 mg of codeine and 300 mg of acetaminophen.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the between-group difference in decline in pain 2 hours after ingestion. Pain intensity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst possible pain. The predefined minimum clinically important difference was 1.3 on the NRS. Analysis of variance was used to test the overall between-group difference at P = .05 and 99.2% CIs adjusted for multiple pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS

Of 416 patients randomized, 411 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 37 [12] years; 199 [48%] women; 247 [60%] Latino). The baseline mean NRS pain score was 8.7 (SD, 1.3). At 2 hours, the mean NRS pain score decreased by 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.9) in the ibuprofen and acetaminophen group; by 4.4 (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.0) in the oxycodone and acetaminophen group; by 3.5 (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.2) in the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group; and by 3.9 (95% CI, 3.2 to 4.5) in the codeine and acetaminophen group (P = .053). The largest difference in decline in the NRS pain score from baseline to 2 hours was between the oxycodone and acetaminophen group and the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group (0.9; 99.2% CI, -0.1 to 1.8), which was less than the minimum clinically important difference in NRS pain score of 1.3. Adverse events were not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

For patients presenting to the ED with acute extremity pain, there were no statistically significant or clinically important differences in pain reduction at 2 hours among single-dose treatment with ibuprofen and acetaminophen or with 3 different opioid and acetaminophen combination analgesics. Further research to assess adverse events and other dosing may be warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02455518.

A randomised controlled trial of paracetamol and ibuprofen with or without codeine or oxycodone as initial analgesia for adults with moderate pain from limb injury

OBJECTIVE

Compare pain relief from non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone analgesic regimens in adults with moderate pain from limb injury.

METHOD

Double-blind, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Three regimens of six tablets, each included 2 × 500 mg paracetamol and 2 × 200 mg ibuprofen with 2 × 100 mg thiamine (non-opioid), 2 × 30 mg codeine (codeine) or 2 × 5 mg oxycodone tablets (oxycodone).

PRIMARY OUTCOME

difference in mean visual analogue scale (VAS) change between groups at 30 min, with a limit of inferiority of 13. Secondary outcomes included mean change in VAS rating from baseline to 30 min for each group, patient satisfaction, need for additional analgesia and adverse events. Pain ratings taken at 60 and 90 min for patients still in ED are described.

RESULTS

Of 182 patients randomised, non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone numbers were 61, 62 and 59. Differences (95% CI) between groups at 30 min were as follows: non-opioid versus codeine -2.6 (-8.8 to 3.6); non-opioid versus oxycodone -2.7 (-9.3 to 3.9); codeine versus oxycodone 0.1 (-6.6 to 6.4). Mean VAS reductions for non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone were -13.5, -16.1 and -16.2 mm, respectively. Satisfaction with analgesia was reported by 77.6% (64.7-87.5), 81.0% (67.2-89.0) and 73.6% (59.7-84.7) and adverse events by 3.3% (0.4-11.3), 1.6% (0.4-8.7) and 16.9% (8.4-29.0), respectively. Mean VAS reductions at 60 and 90 min were as follows: -23.2 and -18.7 mm for non-opioid; -30.7 and -33.3 mm for codeine; and -26.1 and -31.7 mm for oxycodone.

CONCLUSION

At 30 min, analgesic effects of non-opioid, codeine and oxycodone groups were non-inferior.

Assay sensitivity of pain intensity versus pain relief in acute pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and meta-analysis

The magnitude of the effect size of an analgesic intervention can be influenced by several factors, including research design. A key design component is the choice of the primary endpoint. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the assay sensitivity of 2 efficacy paradigms: pain intensity (calculated using summed pain intensity difference [SPID]) and pain relief (calculated using total pain relief [TOTPAR]). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify acute pain studies that calculated both SPIDs and TOTPARs within the same study. Studies were included in this review if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigations involving medications for postsurgical acute pain and if enough data were provided to calculate TOTPAR and SPID standardized effect sizes. Based on a meta-analysis of 45 studies, the mean standardized effect size for TOTPAR (1.13) was .11 higher than that for SPID (1.02; P = .01). Mixed-effects meta-regression analyses found no significant associations between the TOTPAR - SPID difference in standardized effect size and trial design characteristics. Results from this review suggest that for acute pain studies, utilizing TOTPAR to assess pain relief may be more sensitive to treatment effects than utilizing SPID to assess pain intensity.

PERSPECTIVE

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that TOTPAR may be more sensitive to treatment effects than SPIDs are in analgesic trials examining acute pain. We found that standardized effect sizes were higher for TOTPAR compared to SPIDs.

Oral analgesia for relieving post-caesarean pain

BACKGROUND

Oral analgesia is a convenient and widely used form of pain relief following caesarean section. It includes various medications used at different doses alone or in adjunction to other form of analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral analgesia for post-caesarean pain relief.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.Interventions included oral medication given to women for post-caesarean pain relief compared with oral medication, or placebo/no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies and independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data using the agreed data extraction form, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight small trials involving 962 women (out of 13 included trials) contributed data to the analysis, of which only four trials had low risk of bias.None of the included studies reported on 'adequate pain relief', which is one of this review's primary outcomes. 1. Opiod analgesics versus placeboBased on one trial involving 120 women, the effect of opioids versus placebo was not significant in relation to the need for additional pain relief (primary outcome) (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 1.92), and the effect in terms of adverse drug effects outcomes was also uncertain (RR 6.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 113.96).Low (75 mg) and high (150 mg) doses of tramadol had a similar effect on the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.78 and RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68, respectively, one study, 80 women). 2. Non-opioid analgesia versus placeboThe confidence interval for the lower requirement for additional analgesia (primary outcome) with the non-opioid analgesia group was wide and includes little or no effect (average RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.01, six studies, 584 women). However, we observed substantial heterogeneity due to the variety of non-opioid drugs used (I(2) = 85%). In a subgroup analysis of different drugs, only gabapentin use resulted in less need for additional pain relief (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.51, one trial, 126 women). There was no difference in need for additional pain relief with the use of celexocib, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, naproxen, paracetamol. Maternal drug effects were more common with the use of non-opioid analgesics (RR 11.12, 95% CI 2.13 to 58.22, two trials, 267 women).Gabapentin 300 mg (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49, one study, 63 women) and 600 mg (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71, one study, 63 women) as well as ketoprofen 100 mg (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, one study 72 women) were both more effective than placebo with respect to the need for additional pain relief. However, the 50 mg ketoprofen group and the placebo group did not differ in terms of the number of women requiring additional pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07, one study, 72 women). 3. Combination analgesics versus placeboOur pooled analysis for the effect of combination analgesics on the need for additional pain relief was RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.40, three trials, 242 women, I(2) = 69%). When comparing different drugs within the combination oral analgesics versus placebo comparison we observed subgroup differences (P = 0.05; I² = 65.8%). One trial comparing paracetamol plus codeine versus placebo resulted in fewer women requiring additional pain relief (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, one trial, 65 women). However, there were no differences in the the number of women requiring additional pain relief when comparing paracetamol plus oxycodone versus placebo, or paracetamol plus propoxyphene (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28, one trial, 96 women and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.69, one trial, 81 women, respectively).Maternal drug effects were more common in combination analgesics group versus placebo (RR 13.18, 95% CI 2.86 to 60.68, three trials, 252 women). 4. Opioid analgesics versus non-opioid analgesicsThe confidence interval for the effect on additional pain relief between opioid and non-opioid drugs was very wide (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.51, one trial, 121 women). Side effects were more common with the use opioids versus non-opioids analgesics (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.69, two trials 241 women). 5. Opioid analgesics versus combination analgesicsThere was no difference in need for additional pain relief in opioid analgesics versus combination analgesics based on one study involving 121 women comparing tramadol and paracetamol plus propoxyphene (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.51). Maternal adverse effects also did not differ between the two groups (RR 6.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 116.79). 6. Non-opioid versus combination analgesicsThe need for additional pain relief was greater in the group of women who received non-opoid analgesics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93, one trial, 192 women) compared with the group of women who received combination analgesics. Secondary outcomes not reported in the included studiesNo data were found on the following secondary outcomes: number of days in hospital post-operatively, re-hospitalisation due to incisional pain, fully breastfeeding on discharge, mixed feeding at discharge, incisional pain at six weeks after caesarean section, maternal post partum depression, effect (negative) on mother and baby interaction and cost of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eight trials with 962 women were included in the analysis, but only four trials were of high quality. All the trials were small. We carried out subgroup analysis for different drugs within the same group and for high versus low doses of the same drug. However, the relatively few studies (one to two trials) and numbers of women (40 to 136) limits the reliability of these subgroup analyses.Due to limited data available no conclusions can be made regarding the safest and the most effective form of oral analgesia for post-caesarean pain. Further studies are necessary.

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of oxycodone and acetaminophen following single-dose administration of MNK-795, a dual-layer biphasic IR/ER combination formulation, under fed and fasted conditions

BACKGROUND

XARTEMIS™ XR (formerly MNK-795) is a combination oxycodone (OC) and acetaminophen (APAP) analgesic with both immediate-release and extended-release (ER) components (ER OC/APAP). The tablets are designed with gastric-retentive ER oral delivery technology that releases the ER component at a controlled rate in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Because consumption of food has demonstrated an impact on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of some marketed products using gastric-retentive ER oral delivery technology, a characterization of the effects of fed (high- and low-fat diets) versus fasted conditions on the PK of ER OC/APAP was performed.

METHODS

This Phase I study used an open-label randomized single-dose three-period six-sequence crossover single-center design. Healthy adult participants (n=48) were randomized to receive two tablets of ER OC/APAP under three conditions: following a high-fat meal; following a low-fat meal; and fasted. Plasma concentration versus time data from predose throughout designated times up to 48 hours postdose was used to estimate the PK parameters of oxycodone and APAP.

RESULTS

Thirty-one participants completed all three treatment periods. Both oxycodone and APAP were rapidly absorbed under fasted conditions. Total oxycodone and APAP exposures (area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve [AUC]) from ER OC/APAP were not significantly affected by food, and minimal changes to maximum observed plasma concentration for oxycodone and APAP were also noted. However, food marginally delayed the time to maximum observed plasma concentration of oxycodone and APAP. There was no indication that tolerability was affected by food.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study suggest that ER OC/APAP can be administered with or without food.

Adherence and long-term effect of oxycodone/paracetamol in chronic noncancer pain: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Long-term administration of opiates in patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is subject to debate due to insufficient clinical evidence to support efficacy and tolerability.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used hospital records to investigate the effects of low doses of the combination of oxycodone/paracetamol on CNCP in an outpatient clinic setting to verify adherence to therapy and long-term efficacy. All patients receiving therapy for CNCP were examined between May and September 2010 and information was collected on medication, duration of therapy, and static and dynamic pain measured using numeric rating scales (NRS) from relevant charts.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-one patients (157 men, 68%) with a mean (± SD) age of 66.4±15.5 years were analyzed. Pain indexes at baseline revealed a mean (± SD) static NRS (sNRS) of 3.5±1.77 and a mean dynamic NRS (dNRS) of 7.24±1.33. At last follow-up, mean (± SD) pain reductions versus baseline were 1.58±1.42 for sNRS and 3.04±1.43 for dNRS (P<0.0001 for both). Regarding the duration of therapy, 54 patients (23.4%) were treated for <4 months, and 177 patients (76.6%) for 4 months up to 23 months. Pain reduction was significant in all groups (P<0.0001) but was greatest in patients who had been receiving therapy for ≥4 months. Improvements in pain relief were not associated with an increase in daily dose, which remained stable or decreased slightly over time.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study support the hypothesis that an opiate-based combination at low doses improves tolerability and adherence and results in patients obtaining long-term efficacy. Larger studies of the use of opiates in this setting and clinical monitoring on the regional and national level may convince clinicians to view opiates as efficacious analgesics and not as dangerous substances of abuse.

Oxycodone combinations for pain relief

No single analgesic drug provides the perfect therapeutic/adverse effect profile for every pain condition. In addition to convenience and possibly improved compliance, a combination of analgesic drugs offers the potential, requiring verification, of providing greater pain relief and/or reduced adverse effects than the constituent drugs when used individually. We review here analgesic combinations containing oxycodone. We found surprisingly little preclinical information about the analgesic or adverse effect profiles of the combinations (with acetaminophen, paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, morphine, gabapentin or pregabalin). Clinical experience and studies suggest that the combinations are safe and effective and may offer certain advantages. As with all combinations, the profile of adverse effects must also be determined in order to provide the clinician with the overall benefit/risk assessment.

Single dose oral oxycodone and oxycodone plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Oxycodone is a strong opioid agonist used to treat severe pain. It is commonly combined with milder analgesics such as paracetamol. This review updates a previous review that concluded, based on limited data, that all doses of oxycodone exceeding 5 mg, with or without paracetamol, provided analgesia in postoperative pain, but with increased incidence of adverse events compared with placebo. Additional new studies provide more reliable estimates of efficacy and harm.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy, duration of action, and associated adverse events of single dose oral oxycodone, with or without paracetamol, in acute postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Oxford Pain Relief Database, searched in May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose orally administered oxycodone, with or without paracetamol, in adults with moderate to severe acute postoperative pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into the dichotomous outcome of number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, from which relative risk and number-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNT) were calculated. Numbers of participants remedicating over specified time periods, and time-to-use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Adverse events and withdrawals information was collected.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 20 studies, with 2641 participants. For oxycodone 15 mg alone compared with placebo, the NNT for at least 50% pain relief was 4.6 (95% Confidence Interval 2.9 to 11). For oxycodone 10 mg plus paracetamol 650 mg, the NNT was 2.7 (2.4 to 3.1). A dose response was demonstrated for this outcome with combination therapy. Duration of effect was 10 hours with oxycodone 10 mg plus paracetamol 650 mg, and 4 hours with half that dose. Fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours at the higher dose. Adverse events occurred more frequently with combination therapy than placebo, but were generally described as mild to moderate in severity and rarely led to withdrawal.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single dose oxycodone is an effective analgesic in acute postoperative pain at doses over 5 mg; oxycodone is two to three times stronger than codeine. Efficacy increases when combined with paracetamol. Oxycodone 10 mg plus paracetamol 650 mg provides good analgesia to half of those treated, comparable to commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with the benefit of longer duration of action.

The value of CYP2D6 and OPRM1 pharmacogenetic testing for opioid therapy

In managing pain, clinicians working with the more than 80 million people in the United States who suffer annually from serious pain face decisions about choosing the most appropriate pharmacologic agent, to contemplating nonpharmacologic modalities. This article focuses on opioid use for pain management, their risks of toxicity and addiction, adverse reactions, undertreatment for fear of addiction, and integration of novel diagnostics, such as the pharmacogenetic biomarkers CYP2D6 and OPRM1 as holding promise for assessing a patient's risk of adverse events or likelihood of efficacy. Incorporation of such biomarkers is emerging on the forefront of personalized medicine, and has the potential to dramatically improve the utility and efficacy of both current and future pain management strategies.

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

The use of selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors is highly controversial today, mainly because of doubts about cardiovascular tolerance. Few studies have assessed the use of these drugs in daily clinical practice. This study aims to assess the changes in their use in daily practice in France and to compare it with their use in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

The French National Health Insurance Fund AMPI database of self-employed workers in non-agricultural occupations was used to obtain the following information: patients requesting reimbursement for celecoxib and rofecoxib between November 2000 and October 2003, morbidity assessed by enrollment on the lists of chronic diseases for which care is fully (100%) reimbursed, pregnancy (assessed by the payment of physicians' or hospital fees for delivery or by maternity benefits), and concomitant drugs (by claims for reimbursement). We compared these patients with those in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of celecoxib or rofecoxib published in either English or French before November 2003; we focused on their demographic characteristics, morbidity, pregnancy and concomitant drug use.

RESULTS

Use of COX-2 inhibitors in France did not vary over the study period, except for patients' mean age (range: 64.2-62.9 years), proportion of women (56.7%-54.7%) and use of gastroprotective drugs (18.2%-28.4%). The mean age of patients in our study was 10 years older than that of RCT patients, and the proportion of women in our study was 15% lower. The percentage of women who took these drugs while pregnant was 0.02% in our study and 0.09% in the RCT. The percentage of patients with long-term chronic disorders overall was higher in our study than in the RCT, and the percentage for all specific long-term diseases except rheumatoid arthritis was also higher (for example, more patients had cardiovascular diseases or diabetes in our study [15%] than in the RCT [6%]). Patients in our study also used concomitant drugs from 9 of the 14 principal Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification groups more frequently than RCT patients: for cardiovascular drugs, for example, the figures were 55% and 5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The demographic characteristics, prevalence of chronic morbidity and use of concomitant drugs among COX-2 inhibitor users in France varied little over the three years after marketing approval. Compared with RCT patients, these users were less often female, were older and more often had cardiovascular diseases. Cardiovascular events occurring among COX-2 inhibitor users in France should be evaluated.

Pharmacokinetic properties of combination oxycodone plus racemic ibuprofen: two randomized, open-label, crossover studies in healthy adult volunteers

BACKGROUND

As part of ongoing studies to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and pharmacokinetic properties of combination oxycodone plus ibuprofen in the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain, 2 pharmacokinetic studies were conducted.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of these studies were to compare the pharmacokinetic properties of monotherapy with oxycodone or ibuprofen with those of a tablet formulation of these 2 agents combined (study A), and to determine whether the absorption of the individual agents when given in the combination tablet was affected by the concomitant ingestion of food (study B).

METHODS

Study A was a single-center, open-label, randomized, single-dose, 3-period, 3-way, crossover study. Healthy male subjects received oxycodone 5 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, or a combination tablet containing both, after an overnight fast of > or =8 hours, on study days 1, 8, and 15. Study B was a single-center, open-label, randomized, single-dose, single-crossover study. Healthy volunteers received a tablet containing a combination of oxycodone 5 mg plus ibuprofen 400 mg after either an overnight fast of > or =8 hours or a standardized high-fat breakfast. Both studies included a washout period of > or =7 days between treatments. In both studies, the pharmacokinetic properties (C(max), T(max), t(1/2), AUC(0-4), AUC(0-1), and AUC(0-infinity)) of oxycodone and ibuprofen were derived from plasma drug concentrations. Analysis of variance was used to determine and compare pharmacokinetic properties.

RESULTS

Twenty-four healthy, white, male subjects were included in study A (mean age, 26.0 years; mean body weight, 71.3 kg; mean height, 170.0 cm). Study B involved 12 subjects (11 men, 1 woman; mean age, 24.8 years; mean body weight, 77.2 kg; mean height, 181.4 cm). The pharmacokinetic properties of ibuprofen and oxycodone were not statistically different when administered alone or combined. Food intake did not affect the rate of oxycodone absorption (90% Cl of C(max) of fasted state vs fed state, 103-130), or the rate (90% Cl of C(max) of fasted state vs fed state, 72-95) or extent (90% Cl of AUC(0-infinity) of fasted state vs fed state, 88-102) of ibuprofen absorption. The extent of oxycodone absorption was slightly increased when the combination was given with food (90% Cl of AUC(0-infinity) of fasted state vs fed state, 115-127).

CONCLUSIONS

The single-dose pharmacokinetic profiles of oxycodone and ibuprofen in these healthy volunteers were similar when these 2 drugs were given as monotherapy or in combination, suggesting bioequivalence. Food intake before administration of a single dose of the combination did not affect ibuprofen absorption but marginally increased the extent, but not the rate, of oxycodone absorption.

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

BACKGROUND

The sensation of pain arises from both central and peripheral sites, and inflammation may be one of its underlying causes. Combination therapy with analgesic agents having multimodal mechanisms of action and complementary pharmacokinetic properties enhances pain relief by addressing the different pathways of pain while limiting individual drug doses and, therefore, the potential for adverse effects caused by any single agent. Oxycodone and ibuprofen each have been used effectively as monotherapy and in other combinations for the treatment of acute pain; a fixed combination of these analgesics may improve pain relief in the setting of abdominal or pelvic surgery, where trauma and any resultant inflammation may be present at the same time.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated and compared the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single-dose combination tablet containing oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg with either agent alone and with placebo in women who had undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind,placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group trial, women experiencing moderate to severe pain between 14 and 48 hours after surgery were randomized per protocol to receive a single dose of study medication in a 3:3:1:1 ratio (combination oxycodone/ibuprofen, ibuprofen, oxycodone, and placebo, in that order). Over a 6-hour study period, patients recorded their assessments of pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale and 4-point scale), relief from starting pain, and overall evaluation of study drug based on prespecified definitions and rating scales. Based on these data, the following primary efficacy end points were determined: total pain relief 6 hours after dosing (TOTPAR6) and sum of pain intensity differences 6 hours after dosing (SPID6). Other end points included the time to onset of pain relief, time to use of rescue medication, and patient's global rating of analgesic effectiveness. Tolerability was evaluated on the basis of observed and patient-reported adverse events and findings on physical examination.

RESULTS

Four hundred fifty-six women participated in the study. They were primarily white and had a mean age of 41.6 years and a mean body weight of 171.5 pounds. Combination treatment was associated with significantly better TOTPAR6 and SPID6 scores compared with ibuprofen alone (P < 0.02 and P < 0.015, respectively), oxycodone alone (P < 0.009 and P < 0.001), or placebo (both, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving combination treatment required rescue medication, and the time to use of rescue medication was significantly longer in the combination-treatment group compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). Patients' global ratings of analgesic efficacy were significantly higher in the combination-treatment group compared with all other groups (P < 0.044 vs ibuprofen alone; P < 0.001 vs oxycodone alone and placebo). The onset of pain relief occurred within 15 minutes of dosing with all 4 regimens. Nausea was the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event in all 4 groups. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was highest with placebo (55.0%), followed by oxycodone alone (44.2%), ibuprofen alone (42.3%), and combination treatment (40.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of women who had undergone abdominal or pelvic surgery, the combination of oxycodone 5 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly more effective than either agent alone or placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain.

Efficacy of Ibuprofen-Hydrocodone for the Treatment of Postoperative Pain After Periodontal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have significant benefits in the control of postoperative pain after periodontal or oral surgical procedures. The combination of a peripherally acting NSAID with a centrally acting opioid drug is found to be more effective. The purpose of this study was to compare an alternative combination of ibuprofen 400 mg with 5 mg of hydroxycodone to ibuprofen 400 mg used alone in the management of pain following periodontal surgery.

METHODS

This study used a double-masked cross-over design with the patients acting as their own controls. Twelve patients underwent two periodontal surgeries in different quadrants of the same dental arch at least 2 weeks apart. A standardized amount of local anesthetic and similar extent and duration of surgery for each side was required. The patients received four doses of medication at predetermined intervals and filled out a visual analog pain scale every 2 hours for the first 12 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

The overall pain reported by the patients on visual analog scale was 1.55 (SE +/- 0.16), out of a possible 10. More pain was reported with ibuprofen alone, 1.81 (SE +/- 0.12), compared to the ibuprofen with hydrocodone combination, 1.30 (SE +/- 0.16). The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that a combination analgesic preparation of ibuprofen (400 mg) with hydrocodone (5 mg) results in better pain control compared to ibuprofen used alone.

Comparison of rofecoxib and a multidose oxycodone/ acetaminophen regimen for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h as well as with a multidose regimen of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg followed by oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg over 24 h.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, two-phase study, patients with moderate to severe pain after surgical extraction of >or= 2 third molars, including one mandibular impaction, were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg (singledose phase) followed by 5/325 mg every 6h as needed (multidose phase), or placebo. Patients rated their pain relief and intensity at 18 time points over 24 h. Efficacy was measured over 6 and 24 h by total pain relief (TOPAR), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID), and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Primary endpoint for the single dose comparison was TOPAR over 6 h; SPID was the key 24-h endpoint. Onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen. effect, and duration of analgesic effect were also evaluated. Adverse experiences were recorded.

RESULTS

271 patients were randomized to treatment with rofecoxib (n = 121), oxycodone/acetaminophen (n = 120), or placebo (n = 30). For the single dose comparison, rofecoxib-treated patients achieved pain relief at least as effective as oxycodone/acetaminophentreated patients as assessed by TOPAR6 (12.9 vs 11.3, 95% CI on difference = [-0.1, 3.2], p = 0.059). Patients also rated a single dose of rofecoxib as at least as effective as multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h on SPID24 (21.9 vs 18.1, 95% CI on difference = [-1.0, 8.8], p = 0.122). Patients treated with oxycodone/ acetaminophen had a shorter time to onset of analgesia than patients treated with rofecoxib (24 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). Patients in the active treatment groups achieved similar peak effects during the single-dose phase. Individuals treated with rofecoxib demonstrated a longer duration of analgesic effect than those treated with a Patients on active treatment demonstrated better efficacy than patients on placebo on these prespecified endpoints (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Fewer rofecoxib than oxycodone/acetaminophen patients experienced adverse events (47.9 vs 75.8%, p < 0.001), including nausea (19.0 vs 42.5%, p < 0.001), vomiting (9.9 vs 24.2%, p < 0.01), and dizziness (7.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg achieved an overall analgesic effect at least as effective as patients treated with a single-dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h and multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h, with fewer adverse experiences of nausea (p < 0.001), vomiting (p < 0.01), and dizziness (p < 0.001).

Recent advances in clinical use of opioids

Opioid therapy for pain is the subject of numerous randomized clinical trials. Opioids are being developed for delivery by a wide variety of mechanisms. New opioids are becoming available for clinical use. This review surveys recent developments in these clinical trials and provides an overview of what may be expected in the near future for opioid management of pain.

Postoperative pain management in obstetric anesthesia–new challenges and solutions

The current understanding of pain processing mechanisms, the different pharmacologic drugs, and other nonpharmacologic means that can be used to manage postobstetric operation pain are reviewed.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the analgesic efficacy of oxycodone 10 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg versus controlled-release oxycodone 20 mg in postsurgical pain

This randomized, controlled trial compared the analgesic efficacy and safety of the new oxycodone 10-mg/acetaminophen 325-mg formulation (Percocet) for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery with double the dose of oxycodone alone (controlled-release [CR] oxycodone 20 mg [OxyContin]). A total of 150 male and female patients with > or = 2 full or partial bone-impacted mandibular molars, at least moderate persistent pain, and moderate trauma received a single dose of combination agent, CR oxycodone, or placebo following oral surgery and rated pain intensity and pain relief over the next 6 hours. The intent-to-treat population comprised 141 patients (55 on combination agent, 56 on oxycodone, and 30 on placebo). Combination agent and CR oxycodone were significantly superior to placebo for all efficacy measures. Combination agent was statistically superior to CR oxycodone in four of five outcome measures of pain intensity and pain relief (PPID, PPAR, SPID, and SPRID). It also provided a faster onset and 24% reduction in the number of patients reporting treatment-related adverse events compared with twice the dose of opioid alone. This new formulation offers the combination of two analgesic drugs with complementary mechanisms of action, which results in enhanced analgesia, an "opioid-sparing" effect, and an improved side effect and safety profile.

The efficacy of premedication with celecoxib and acetaminophen in preventing pain after otolaryngologic surgery

Non-opioid analgesics are often used to supplement opioids for the management of perioperative pain. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we examined the effects of acetaminophen and a cyclooxygenase type-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination, before elective otolaryngologic surgery in 112 healthy outpatients. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 4 study groups: Group 1, placebo (vitamin C, 500 mg per os [PO]); Group 2, acetaminophen 2000 mg PO; Group 3, celecoxib 200 mg PO; or Group 4, acetaminophen 2000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg PO. All patients received a standardized anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain was assessed using a 10-point verbal rating scale. Recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, side effects, and patient satisfaction scores were also recorded. The combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain. Celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination with acetaminophen, improved patients' satisfaction with their postoperative analgesia. With the combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib, an additional expenditure of $6.16 would be required to obtain complete satisfaction with postoperative pain management in one additional patient who would not have been completely satisfied if he/she had received the placebo. However, oral celecoxib or acetaminophen alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain when administered before surgery. We conclude that oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was highly effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after outpatient surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after otolaryngologic surgery. However, acetaminophen (2000 mg) or celecoxib (200 mg) alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain.

Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination oxycodone and acetaminophen in the treatment of moderate or severe acute low back pain

BACKGROUND

Introduced in 1997, the combination of hydrocodone and ibuprofen is the only fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg (HC/IB) with those of combination oxycodone 5 mg and acetaminophen 325 mg (OX/AC) in the treatment of moderate or severe acute low back pain.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, repeat-dose study lasting up to 8 days. The recommended dosing of the study medications was 1 tablet every 4 to 6 hours, not to exceed 5 tablets per day. If adequate pain relief was not obtained, patients were permitted to take up to 4 doses per day of supplemental analgesic medication-the nonopioid component of the assigned study medication (ibuprofen 200 mg or acetaminophen 325 mg). Measures of efficacy included mean daily pain relief scores (0 = no relief, 1 = slight relief, 2 = moderate relief, 3 = good relief, and 4 = complete relief), mean daily number of tablets and doses of study medication, mean daily number of tablets and doses of supplemental analgesic medication, global evaluation (poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent), and results on the modified 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). All efficacy measures were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events reported spontaneously or elicited by the in vestigators using nonsuggestive questioning, as well as on the number of patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 147 patients (75 HC/IB, 72 OX/AC). The most common cause of low back pain was muscular/ligamentous injury (97/147; 66.0%), followed by degenerative disk disease (27/147; 18.4%). At baseline, 80 patients (54.4%) reported experiencing moderate pain, and 67 patients (45.6%) reported experiencing severe pain. There were no significant differences between HC/IB and OX/AC with regard to mean ( +/- SD) daily pain relief scores (2.40 +/- 1.06 vs 2.50 +/- 1.01, respectively), mean daily number of tablets of study medication (1.80 +/- 1.70 vs 2.20 +/- 1.60), mean daily number of doses of study medication (1.80 +/- 1.65 vs 2.10 +/- 1.58), mean daily number of tablets of supplemental analgesic medication (0.60 +/- 1.13 vs 0.50 +/- 0.99), mean daily number of doses of supplemental analgesic medication (0.60 +/- 1.07 vs 0.50 +/- 0.90), global evaluations, or mean scores on the modified SF-36. In addition, there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events with HC/IB (47; 62.7%) and OX/AC (45; 62.5%). Adverse events were consistent with those generally associated with the component analgesics and predominantly involved the central nervous system and gastrointestinal system.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that HC/IB and OX/AC are similarly effective and tolerable in relieving moderate or severe acute low back pain. Additional controlled longitudinal trials are necessary to evaluate the clinical utility of HC/IB in treating acute low back pain.

Dose-response effect of combination hydrocodone with ibuprofen in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate a dose-response effect with 1- and 2-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg and placebo in patients with moderate to severe postoperative abdominal or gynecologic pain.

BACKGROUND

Hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg is the only approved fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen. Previous studies with this combination have demonstrated that the components have an additive analgesic effect as well as efficacy compared with other fixed-dose combination analgesics.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled study compared 1 tablet of hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg (n = 60), 2 tablets of hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg (n = 60), and placebo (n = 60) in patients with moderate or severe pain after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. Analgesia was evaluated over 8 hours.

RESULTS

Mean pain relief (PR) scores were significantly greater for the 2-tablet dose than for the 1-tablet dose at 80 (P = 0.027) and 100 (P = 0.017) minutes and at 2 (P = 0.013), 2.5 (P = 0.012), 3 (P = 0.006), 4 (P = 0.029), 5 (P = 0.002), 6 (P = 0.032), 7 (P = 0.036), and 8 (P = 0.01) hours. Mean pain intensity difference scores were significantly greater for the 2-tablet dose than for the 1-tablet dose at 80 (P = 0.013) and 100 (P = 0.007) minutes and at 2 (P = 0.003), 2.5 (P = 0.002), 3 (P = 0.002), 4 (P = 0.009), 5 (P < 0.001), 6 (P = 0.004), 7 (P = 0.009), and 8 (P = 0.001) hours. Mean total PR scores were significantly greater for the 2-tablet dose than for the 1-tablet dose for all measured time intervals (0 to 3 hours, P = 0.01; 0 to 4 hours, P = 0.006; 0 to 6 hours, P = 0.003; 0 to 8 hours, P = 0.003). Mean sum of pain intensity differences was significantly greater for the 2-tablet dose than for the 1-tablet dose for all measured time intervals (0 to 3 hours, P = 0.004; 0 to 4 hours, P < 0.001; 0 to 6 hours, P < 0.001; 0 to 8 hours, P < 0.001). Mean peak PR score and median time-to-remedication were significantly greater for the 2-tablet dose than for the 1-tablet dose (P < 0.029 and P = 0.017, respectively). Both doses were superior to placebo. There were no significant differences in the number of patients experiencing adverse events between the 2-tablet dose (n = 6 [10.0%]), the 1-tablet dose (n = 4 [6.7%]), and placebo (n = 1 11.7%]). Adverse events were not serious, and none of the patients discontinued therapy because of side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a 2-tablet dose of hydrocodone with ibuprofen provided significantly more analgesia than a 1-tablet dose (a positive dose-response effect) and that both doses were superior to placebo.

Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination codeine and acetaminophen for the treatment of chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg with that of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg for the treatment of chronic pain.

BACKGROUND

Hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg is the only approved fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen.

METHODS

In this randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, repeated-dose, active-comparator, 4-week, multicenter study, 469 patients were randomly assigned to receive a 1-tablet (n = 156) or 2-tablet (n = 153) dose of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg (HI1 and HI2, respectively) or a 2-tablet dose of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg (CA, n = 160), the active comparator, every 6 to 8 hours as needed for pain. Efficacy was measured through pain relief scores, number of daily doses of study medication, number of daily doses of supplemental analgesics, number of patients who discontinued therapy due to an unsatisfactory analgesic response, and global assessment scores.

RESULTS

Of the 469 patients, 255 (54.4%) were female and 214 (45.6%) were male. The mean age was 51.1 years. Types of chronic pain included back (214; 45.6%), arthritic (145; 30.9%), other musculoskeletal (65; 13.9%), cancer (6; 1.3%), diabetic neuropathic (3; 0.6%), postherpetic neuralgic (5; 1.1%), other neurologic (21; 4.5%), and other unclassified chronic pain (10; 2.1%). During the 48 hours prior to the study, 351 (74.8%) patients had been treated with opioid or opioid-nonopioid combination analgesics. The overall mean daily pain relief score was significantly greater in the HI2 group (2.25+/-0.89) than in the HI1 group (1.98+/-0.87) (P = 0.003) or the CA group (1.85+/-0.96) (P < 0.001). The overall mean number of daily doses of study medication was significantly less in the HI2 group (2.94+/-0.99) than in the HI1 group (3.23+/-0.76) (P = 0.036) or the CA group (3.26+/-0.75) (P = 0.014). The overall mean number of daily doses of supplemental analgesics was significantly less in the HI2 group (0.24+/-0.49) than in the HI1 group (0.34+/-0.58) (P = 0.021) or CA group (0.49+/-0.85) (P = 0.010). The number of patients who discontinued treatment due to an unsatisfactory analgesic response was significantly less in the HI2 group (2; 1.3%) than in the CA group (12; 7.5%) (P = 0.008). HI2 was more effective than HI1 and CA as measured by pain relief scores for week 1 (P < 0.001 vs HI1 and CA), week 2 (P < 0.001 vs HI1 and CA), and week 3 (P = 0.008 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA); daily doses of study medication for week 1 (P = 0.019 vs HI1 and P = 0.011 vs CA); daily doses of supplemental analgesics for week 1 (P = 0.010 vs HI1 and CA); and global assessment scores for week 1 (P = 0.018 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA), week 2 (P = 0.005 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA), and week 4 (P = 0.013 vs HI1 and P = 0.023 vs CA). There were no significant differences between HI1 and CA in any efficacy variable. There were no significant differences in the number of patients experiencing adverse events in the HI2 (127; 83%), HI1 (124; 79.5%), and CA (129; 80.6%) groups. However, the mean number of patients who discontinued treatment due to adverse events was significantly greater in the HI2 group (40; 26.1%) than in the HI1 group (23; 14.7%) (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that 2-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may be more effective than either 1-tablet doses of this combination or 2-tablet doses of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg. Moreover, 1-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may be as effective as 2-tablet doses of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg.