Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 355–358 | Cite as

Double-blind comparison of the analgesic potency of ciramadol, codeine and placebo against postsurgical pain in ambulant patients

  • D. van Steenberghe
  • D. Verbist
  • M. Quirynen
  • E. Thevissen
Short Communications

Summary

The efficacy and safety of ciramadol (Cir) as an analgesic in relieving moderate to severe pain after oral surgery has been studied in 79 patients randomly assigned to receive single oral doses of Cir 15, 30 or 60 mg, codeine 60 mg or placebo. During the 6-hour observation period, the three ciramadol-treated groups indicated greater pain relief than the codeine 60 mg or placebo groups. In general, Cir 60 mg was significantly more effective than codeine 60 mg, and all doses of Cir were superior to placebo. The proportion of patients in each Cir group reporting adverse experiences was significantly higher than in either the placebo or codeine groups. The experimental system proved very effective in demonstrating analgesic potency of Cir. The very high incidence of side-effects in the three ciramadol-treated groups makes it unfit for further clinical use in ambulant patients.

Key words

analgesics ciramadol codeine post-operative oral pain double-blind trial adverse effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yardley JP, Fletcher H, Russell PB (1979) A potent benzylamine analgesic (-)Cir-2 (a-dymethylamino-m-hydroxybenzyl) cyclohexanol. Experientia 34: 1124–1125Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staquet MJ (1980) Analgesic effect of ciramadol in patients with chronic pain. Curr Med Res Opin 6: 475Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camu F (1981) Double-blind comparison of the analgesic response to oral ciramadol (WY-15.705) and pentazocine in post-oparative pain. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 19: 259–262Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Investigator's confidential brochure — WY-15.705 (1979) Wyeth Laboratories, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1960) Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Landis JR, Cooper MM, Kennedy T, Koch GG (1977) A computer program for testing average partial association in three-way contingency tables (PARCAT), Proceedings of the Statistical Computing Section of the American Statistical Association, pp 157–162Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landis JR, Heyman ER, Koch GG (1978) Average partial association in three-way contingency tables: A review and discussion of alternate tests. International Statistical Review 46: 237–254Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodman Gilman A, Goodman LS, Rall TW, Murad F The pharmacological basis of therapeutics (7th edn), chapter 22. Macmilan, New York, pp 502–503Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gutner LB, Gould WJ, Batterman RC (1952) The effects of potent analgesics upon vestibular function. J Clin Invest 31: 259–266Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. van Steenberghe
    • 1
  • D. Verbist
    • 1
  • M. Quirynen
    • 1
  • E. Thevissen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Faculty of MedicineCatholic University LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations