4.4 Article

Onset of Analgesia and Efficacy of Ibuprofen Sodium in Postsurgical Dental Pain A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Study Versus Standard Ibuprofen

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 444-450

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000142

关键词

ibuprofen sodium dihydrate; fast-absorbed ibuprofen; dental pain; analgesia; over-the-counter

资金

  1. Pfizer Madison, NJ, USA
  2. Pfizer
  3. Jean Brown Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: A novel, immediate-release tablet formulation of ibuprofen (IBU) sodium dihydrate, Advil Film Coated Tablets (IBUNa), has been developed that is absorbed faster than standard IBU tablets. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy and onset of analgesia of this new formulation with standard IBU tablets after a single dose. Materials and Methods: Patients (N= 316) with at least moderate baseline postsurgical dental pain were randomized to 400mg IBUNa, Advil (IBUAdv), Motrin (IBUMot), or placebo. Primary endpoints were time-weighted sum of pain relief (PR) and pain intensity differences over 8 hours (SPRID 0-8) and time to onset of meaningful pain relief (TMPR) measured by the double-stopwatch method. Results: SPRID 0-8 was significantly greater for IBUNa and the other active treatments versus placebo (P< 0.001). IBUNa had a significantly earlier TMPR versus placebo, pooled IBUAdv/IBUMot, and IBUMot (P< 0.001 for all), and a marginally faster TMPR (P= 0.075) versus IBUAdv. Results for secondary endpoints were similar. Adverse events were comparable across treatment groups, with gastrointestinal disorders being most frequently reported. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Discussion: This novel formulation of IBUNa provided superior overall PR compared with placebo and more rapid onset of analgesic effect compared with standard IBU tablets. Rapid PR is important in the treatment of acute pain, including dental pain, and this IBUNa formulation represents a new treatment option for rapid PR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据