Evaluation of Ibuprofen vs Paracetamol Analgesic Activity Using a Sore Throat Pain Model
- 111 Downloads
Objective: To validate a slightly modified sore throat pain model by comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen with that of paracetamol.
Design: A double-blind, double-dummy study was conducted.
Setting: Nineteen primary care centres in France.
Patients: Adults consulting their general practitioner with acute sore throat of a maximum of two days’ duration.
Interventions: Patients (n = 113) with acute pain associated with tonsillo-pharyngitis randomly received either 400mg ibuprofen or 1000mg paracetamol. The study design included repeated administration up to 48 hours to assess tolerability.
Main Outcome Measures: At hourly intervals for 6 hours after the first dose of treatment, the patients evaluated pain intensity on swallowing, difficulty in swallowing and global pain relief according to visual analogue scales.
Results: Ibuprofen 400mg was significantly more effective than paracetamol 1000mg in all three ratings, at all time-points for pain intensity and difficulty in swallowing, and from two hours onwards for pain relief. There were no serious adverse effects and no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events in the two treatment groups.
Conclusions: Sore throat pain provided a sensitive model to assess the analgesic efficacy of class I analgesics and discriminated between the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen and paracetamol. Sore throat is a very common complaint and practising physicians should consider ibuprofen as an effective alternative to paracetamol in the treatment of sore throat pain. The sore throat model should be considered by researchers as a sensitive assay of analgesic activity.
KeywordsAdis International Limited Ibuprofen Paracetamol Sore Throat Analgesic Efficacy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Schachtel BP. Sore throat pain. In: Portenoy MM, Laska E, editors. Advances in pain research and therapy. Vol 18. New York: Raven Press Ltd, 1991; 393–407Google Scholar