BackgroundAcetaminophen is often used with a non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug for acute pain. Hitherto, these drugs have had to be given separately, typically at different time intervals. Maxigesic® tablets combine acetaminophen and ibuprofen in clinically appropriate doses to simplify administration and dosage regimen. We compared this combination with each of the constituent drugs for the relief of pain after extraction of third molar teeth.MethodsAdults (more than 16 yr) having one or more wisdom teeth removed under general or local anaesthesia were instructed to take two tablets before operation, then two tablets every 6 h for up to 48 h of: (i) a combination of acetaminophen 500 mg and ibuprofen 150 mg per tablet (Maxigesic®); (ii) acetaminophen 500 mg per tablet alone; or (iii) ibuprofen 150 mg per tablet alone. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) of the 100 mm visual analogue scale pain measurements taken for up to 48 h after surgery, divided by time, at rest and on activity. Pharmacokinetic data were collected in a subset of patients.ResultsThe mean (sem) time-corrected AUC on rest and activity, respectively, were: combination group 22.3 (3.2) and 28.4 (3.4); acetaminophen group 33.0 (3.1) and 40.4 (3.3); and ibuprofen group 34.8 (3.2) and 40.2 (3.4); P<0.01 for each of the four comparisons of combination vs constituent drug. There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between acetaminophen and ibuprofen administered together.ConclusionsMaxigesic® tablets provide superior pain relief after oral surgery to acetaminophen or ibuprofen alone.

We studied 90 adults undergoing surgical removal of at least both lower third molar teeth as day cases under standardized general anaesthesia. Patients were allocated randomly (with stratification for surgeon) to receive tenoxicam 40 mg, tenoxicam 20 mg or placebo i.v. at induction of anaesthesia and orally (effervescent tablets) with food on each of the subsequent 2 days. Panadeine (paracetamol 500 mg-codeine 8 mg) was given before operation and was available as needed for pain thereafter, to a limit of two tablets every 4 h. Nefopam i.v. was also available. Efficacy variables and adverse reactions were assessed over 6 days. Over the 6-day period, patients who received tenoxicam reported less pain on rest (area under the curve; P < 0.05) and less disturbance in sleep (P < 0.01) even though they used fewer Panadeine tablets (P < 0.05). Differences between tenoxicam 40 mg and 20 mg were not significant. There was no significant difference in nefopam requirements or side effects, and no adverse event attributable to the study medication.

SUMMARY One hundred and one patients were studied in a double-blind controlled trial to assess the role of oral cimetidine in preventing the continuation or recurrence ofacute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage from various sources, chiefly peptic ulcer. The dose of cimetidine was 800 mg on entering the study followed by 400 mg six hourly.

SUMMARY Patients suffering from chronic duodenal ulceration were allocated at random to treatment with either cimetidine (400 mg twice daily) or matching placebo for six months. Before entry to the trial all patients were shown to have healed ulcers on endoscopy. Most of the patients had participated in a one-month trial of cimetidine during which their ulcers healed. The trial showed that four of 29 patients relapsed on maintenance treatment with cimetidine, which therefore did not confer complete immunity from relapse. However, cimetidine treatment was very much better than placebo treatment, on which 18 of 31 patients relapsed. Of the 22 patients who relapsed clinically, 20 were submitted to endoscopy and 19 of these were shown to have ulcerated again. Endoscopy at the end of the trial showed that ulcers had also redeveloped in five of 28 asymptomatic patients. Length of previous dyspeptic history had no bearing on the results of the trial but there was evidence that relapse on placebo was less likely if the ulcer had originally healed on a high dose of cimetidine. Clinical relapse was associated with worsening duodenitis. Symptoms, clinical observation, and laboratory tests showed no important abnormalities in the patients.Duodenal ulceration is a chronic recurrent condition; so long-term treatment with an agent known to promote ulcer healing may be expected to reduce the incidence of relapse. The H2-receptor antagonist, cimetidine, in doses of 0.8-2.0 g/day produces a significantly higher incidence of healing than does placebo treatment, the healing rate on cimetidine being 70-80% in most series (see, for example, Bodemar and Walan, 1976;Blackwood et al., 1976;Gray et al., 1977; Multicentre Trial, 1979).We present an investigation of the effectiveness of cimetidine in maintaining symptomatic and endoscopic remission of chronic duodenal ulceration. The trial was begun in the latter part of 1976 and was completed about a year later. In the interval, others have published results of similar trials which also show the value of maintenance treatment with

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any area, original work is properly cited.