Single-patient data meta-analysis of 3453 postoperative patients: oral tramadol versus placebo, codeine and combination analgesics. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis: a diagnostic for the evolution of total randomized evidence from group and individual patient data. Analgesic efficacy of parenteral paracetamol (propacetamol) and diclofenac in post-operative orthopaedic pain. A comparison between IV paracetamol and IV metamizol for postoperative analgesia after retinal surgery. Randomised study of n of 1 trials versus standard practice. Identifying null meta-analyses that are ripe for updating. Paracetamol versus metamizol in the treatment of postoperative pain after breast surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result. Antipyretic, parasitologic, and immunologic effects of combining sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine with chloroquine or paracetamol for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Effect of paracetamol on parasite clearance time in Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Efficacy of a paracetamol and caffeine combination in the treatment of the key symptoms of primary dysmenorrhoea.
The analgesic effectiveness and safety of oral tramadol were compared with standard analgesics using a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials in patients with moderate or severe pain after surgery or dental extraction. Calculation of %maxTOTPAR from individual patient data, and the use of > 50%maxTOTPAR defined clinically acceptable pain relief. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to have > 50%maxTOTPAR compared with placebo was used to examine the effectiveness of different single oral doses of tramadol and comparator drugs. Eighteen randomised, double-blind, parallel-group single-dose trials with 3453 patients using categorical pain relief scales allowed the calculation of %maxTOTPAR. The use of > 50%maxTOTPAR was a sensitive measure to discriminate between analgesics. Tramadol and comparator drugs gave significantly more analgesia than placebo. In postsurgical pain tramadol 50, 100 and 150 mg had NNTs for > 50%maxTOTPAR of 7.1 (95% confidence intervals 4.6-18), 4.8 (3.4-8.2) and 2.4 (2.0-3.1), comparable with aspirin 650 mg plus codeine 60 mg (NNT 3.6 (2.5-6.3)) and acetaminophen 650 mg plus propoxyphene 100 mg (NNT 4.0 (3.0-5.7)). With the same dose of drug postsurgical patients had more pain relief than those having dental surgery. Tramadol showed a dose-response for analgesia in both postsurgical and dental pain patients. With the same dose of drug postsurgical pain patients had fewer adverse events than those having dental surgery. Adverse events (headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, somnolence) with tramadol 50 mg and 100 mg had a similar incidence to comparator drugs. There was a dose response with tramadol, tending towards higher incidences at higher doses. Single-patient meta-analysis using more than half pain relief provides a sensitive description of the analgesic properties of a drug, and NNT calculations allow comparisons to be made with standard analgesics. Absolute ranking of analgesic performance should be done separately for postsurgical and dental pain. Meta-analyses of randomized evidence may include published, unpublished, and updated data in an ongoing estimation process that continuously accommodates more data. Synthesis may be performed either with group data or with meta-analysis of individual patient data (MIPD). Although MIPD with updated data is considered the gold standard of evidence, there is a need for a careful study of the impact different sources of data have on a meta-analysis and of the change in the treatment effect estimates over sequential information steps. Unpublished data and late-appearing data may be different from early-appearing data. Updated information after the end of the main study follow-up may be affected by cross-overs, missing information, and unblinding. The estimated treatment effect may thus depend on the completeness and updating of the available evidence. To address these issues, we present recursive cumulative meta-analysis (RCM) as an extension of cumulative metaanalysis. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis is based on the principle of recalculating the results of a cumulative meta-analysis with each new or updated piece of information and focuses on the evolution of the treatment effect as a more complete and updated picture of the evidence becomes available. An examination of the perturbations of the cumulative treatment effect over sequential information steps may signal the presence of bias or heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis may suggest whether there is a true underlying treatment effect to which the meta-analysis is converging and how treatment effects are sequentially altered by new or modified evidence. The method is illustrated with an example from the conduct of an MIPD on acyclovir in human immunodeficiency virus infection. The relative strengths and limitations of both metaanalysis of group data and MIPD are discussed through the RCM perspective. Propacetamol is an injectable pro-drug of paracetamol (acetaminophen) with analgesic and antipyretic activities, especially used in the post-operative period. The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol, administered as propacetamol, in comparison with placebo and intramuscular diclofenac in patients with post-operative pain.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study. One hundred and twenty patients with moderate to severe pain following total hip arthroplasty received either two administrations of propacetamol 2 g intravenously, 5 h apart (n = 40), one single administration of diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly (n = 40) or placebo (n = 40). Efficacy measures were assessed before each drug administration, for the 5 h following each study treatment administration and for the total study duration of 10 h. Safety was assessed by reporting adverse events and changes in vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) and biochemical investigations before and 24 h after dosing.
                Both active treatments were effective and statistically superior to placebo over the whole study period, as indicated by the total pain relief score. No significant differences were found between propacetamol and diclofenac for any measures of analgesic activity. Only minor and common adverse events were reported, with no overall differences between the groups.
                Both active treatments were superior to placebo, and the overall efficacy of two intravenous infusions of propacetamol 2 g (equivalent to 1 g of paracetamol), 5 h apart, was not statistically different from that provided by a single intramuscular injection of diclofenac 75 mg over the first 5 h post-dose and over the total 10-h study period. The safety was good. To assess clinical efficacy of IV paracetamol 1 g and IV metamizol 1 IV metamizol 1 g on a 24-h dosing schedule in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of 38 ASA physical status I-III patients undergoing retinal surgery.
                General anaesthesia using remifentanil, propofol, and desflurane was performed for surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to three groups, receiving infusions of paracetamol 1 g/100 mL (Para Group), of metamizol 1 g/100 mL (Meta Group), or of 100 mL of saline solution as placebo control (Plac Group) 30 min before arrival in the recovery area and every 6 h up to 24 h postoperatively. All patients had unrestricted access to intravenous opioid rescue medication.
                The primary efficacy variables were pain scores at rest over 30 h postoperatively analysed by using repeated ANOVA measurement. Secondary efficacy variables were pain scores on coughing, also analysed by repeated ANOVA measurement.
                Five patients in the Plac Group and one patient in the Meta Group interrupted the study protocol. Regarding pain scores at rest, Mauchly-test of sphericity was significant (p = 0.03). For the p time effects a significant result was detected (p < 0.001). The main effect between the three treatment groups was significantly different (p = 0.01). The Bonferroni adjusted pair wise comparisons between p the Plac Group and the Para Group showed a significant difference in favour of IV paracetamol (p = 0.024; mean difference 14.8; p 95% CI 1.6-28.0), between the Plac Group and the Meta Group in favour of IV metamizol (p = 0.025; mean difference 14.4; 95% CI p 1.5-27.4), and no significant difference between the Para Group and the Meta Group (p = 1.0; mean difference 0.4; 95% CI-12.8 to 13.6). Pain scores on coughing showed a significant different main effect between the three treatment groups (p = 0.022). The Bonferroni adjusted pair wise comparisons between the Plac Group and the Para Group showed a significant difference in favour of IV paracetamol (p = 0.032; mean difference 17.9; 95% CI 1.3-34.6), a p difference, though not reaching statistical significance, in favour of IV metamizol between the Plac Group and the Meta Group (p = 0.081; p mean difference 15.0; 95% CI -1.4 to 31.4), and no significant difference between the Para Group and the Meta Group (p = 1.0; p mean difference 2.9; 95% CI -13.8 6 to 19.6). None of the patients experienced itching; one patient in the Meta Group developed a mild erythema. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of nausea (Plac vs. Para Group: p = 0.94, Plac vs. Meta Group: p = 0.98, Para vs Meta Group: p = 0.95) or vomiting (Plac vs. Para Group: p = 0.73, Plac vs. Meta Group: p = 0.85, Para vs Meta Group: p = 0.86) between the groups. Patients in the Plac Group experienced significantly more often sedation than patients in the Meta Group (p = 0.049). There was a trend of higher sedation in the Plac Group than in the Para Group, which did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was no difference in sedation between the Meta and the Para Groups (p = 0.84).
                IV paracetamol 1 g has a similar analgesic potency as IV metamizol 1 g for postoperative analgesia after retinal surgery. To compare outcomes between groups of patients with irreversible chronic airflow limitation given theophylline by n of 1 trials or standard practice.
                Randomised controlled study of n of 1 trials versus standard practice.
                Tertiary care center outpatient department.
                31 patients with irreversible chronic airflow limitation who were unsure that theophylline was helpful after an open trial.
                n Of 1 trials (single patient randomised multiple crossover comparisons of theophylline against placebo) followed published guidelines. For standard practice patients theophylline was stopped and resumed if their dyspnoea worsened; if their dyspnoea then improved theophylline was continued. For both groups a decision to continue or stop the drug was made within three months of randomisation.
                Exercise capacity as measured by six minute walking distance, quality of life as measured by the chronic respiratory disease questionnaire at baseline and six months after randomisation, and proportions of patients taking theophylline at six months.
                26 patients completed follow up. 47% fewer n of 1 trial patients than standard practice patients were taking theophylline at six months (5/14 versus 10/12; 95% confidence interval of difference 14% to 80%) without differences in exercise capacity or quality of life.
                n Of 1 trials led to less theophylline use without adverse effects on exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with irreversible chronic airflow limitation. These data directly support the presence of a clinically important bias towards unnecessary treatment during open prescription of theophylline for irreversible chronic airflow limitation. Confirmation in a larger study and similar studies for other problems appropriate for n of 1 trials are needed before widespread use of n of 1 trials can be advocated in routine clinical practice. As an increasingly large number of meta-analyses are published, quantitative methods are needed to help clinicians and systematic review teams determine when meta-analyses are not up to date.
                We propose new methods for determining when non-significant meta-analytic results might be overturned, based on a prediction of the number of participants required in new studies. To guide decision making, we introduce the "new participant ratio", the ratio of the actual number of participants in new studies to the predicted number required to obtain statistical significance. A simulation study was conducted to study the performance of our methods and a real meta-analysis provides further evidence.
                In our three simulation configurations, our diagnostic test for determining whether a meta-analysis is out of date had sensitivity of 55%, 62%, and 49% with corresponding specificity of 85%, 80%, and 90% respectively.
                Simulations suggest that our methods are able to detect out-of-date meta-analyses. These quick and approximate methods show promise for use by systematic review teams to help decide whether to commit the considerable resources required to update a meta-analysis. Further investigation and evaluation of the methods is required before they can be recommended for general use. Intravenously administered paracetamol is an effective analgesic in postoperative pain management. However, there is a lack of data on the effect of intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol on pain following soft tissue surgery.
                Eighty-seven patients undergoing elective breast surgery with total i.v. anaesthesia (propofol/remifentanil) were randomized to three groups. Group para received 1 g i.v. paracetamol 20 min before and 4, 10 and 16 h after the end of the operation. Group meta and plac received 1 g i.v. metamizol or placebo, respectively, scheduled at the same time points. All patients had access to i.v. morphine on demand to achieve adequate pain relief.
                No significant difference in total morphine consumption between groups was detectable. The proportion of patients who did not receive any morphine in the postoperative period was significantly higher in group para (42%) than in group plac (4%). Ambulation was significantly (P < 0.05) earlier in group para (4.0 +/- 0.2 h) than in groups meta (4.6 +/- 0.2 h) and plac (5.5 +/- 1.0 h). No differences were observed between groups meta and plac. There were no differences between groups with regard to incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or changes in vigilance.
                Neither i.v. paracetamol nor i.v. metamizol provided a significant reduction in total postoperative morphine consumption compared with placebo in the management of postoperative pain after elective breast surgery. Administration of paracetamol resulted in a significant reduction in the number of patients needing opioid analgesics to achieve adequate postoperative pain relief. The large volume of published randomized, controlled trials has led to a need for meta-analyses to track therapeutic advances. Performing a new meta-analysis whenever the results of a new trial of a particular therapy are published permits the study of trends in efficacy and makes it possible to determine when a new treatment appears to be significantly effective or deleterious. We describe the use of such a procedure, cumulative meta-analysis, to assess therapeutic trials among patients with myocardial infarction.
                We performed cumulative meta-analyses of clinical trials that evaluated 15 treatments and preventive measures for acute myocardial infarction.
                An example of this method is its application to the use of intravenous streptokinase as thrombolytic therapy for acute infarction. Thirty-three trials evaluating this therapy were performed between 1959 and 1988. We found that a consistent, statistically significant reduction in total mortality (odds ratios, 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.92) was achieved in 1973, after only eight trials involving 2432 patients had been completed. The results of the 25 subsequent trials, which enrolled an additional 34,542 patients through 1988, had little or no effect on the odds ratio establishing efficacy, but simply narrowed the 95 percent confidence interval. In particular, two very large trials, the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico trial in 1986 (11,712 patients) and the Second International Study of Infarct Survival trial in 1988 (17,187 patients) did not modify the already established evidence of efficacy. We used a similar approach to study the accumulating evidence of efficacy (or lack of efficacy) of 14 other therapies and preventive measures for myocardial infarction.
                Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials facilitates the determination of clinical efficacy and harm and may be helpful in tracking trials, planning future trials, and making clinical recommendations for therapy. Bias from funding sources of trials would threaten their validity. Meta-analyses of high quality acute pain and migraine trials were used to explore the hypothesis that industry funding of clinical trials produced more favourable results than non-profit sponsorship. Analyses were planned to evaluate whether industry-sponsored trials had different results from trials funded by academic or other non-profit sources, but of 176 trials, only two were supported by non-profit sources, while 31 provided no statement of support. An alternative method is proposed within industry-sponsored trials, looking at conflicting industry interests for the same drug, used either as test or comparator treatment. Fifty-three trials used an analgesic as test and 90 as comparator, allowing comparisons to be made for aspirin 600/650 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg and sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg. Only for sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg, with the outcome of headache response at 2 h, was there any significant difference between the drug used as a test or as a comparator. The direction was for higher (worse) NNTs with sumatriptan as comparator. Investigating potential industry bias through the funding source of trials is unlikely to be adequate because of a dearth of trials funded by non-profit organisations. We propose a method based on potential conflict of interest within industry-sponsored trials. Using this method, established clinical trial results in acute pain and migraine appear to be unbiased. Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine (SP) is increasingly used against malaria in sub-Saharan Africa because of chloroquine resistance. However, chloroquine may have a beneficial antipyretic effect. We therefore compared the combination of SP plus chloroquine, chloroquine alone, SP alone, and SP plus paracetamol in the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in 175 Tanzanian children (1-4 years old) in a randomized trial. Outcome variables were axillary temperatures every six hours, daily parasitemias, and serum levels of IgG antibodies to P. falciparum. Lower mean temperatures (6-48 hours) were achieved with SP plus chloroquine or paracetamol than with SP alone (P < 0.001) or chloroquine alone (P < 0.05). All three SP-treated groups showed high and similar parasite reduction (0-48 hours), whereas treatment with chloroquine alone was much less effective. Levels of IgG antibodies to P. falciparum increased significantly (P < 0.001) and similarly in the four treatment groups between days 0, 2, and 3. Thus, the addition of chloroquine or paracetamol to SP improved the clinical outcome, but did not affect the parasitologic response or antibody production. Routine antipyretic therapy in children with infectious diseases has long been the source of controversy. Each year, in addition to antimalarial medication, millions of children with Plasmodium falciparum malaria receive paracetamol to reduce fever. However, the usefulness of this practice has not been proven.
                In a randomised trial in Lambaréné, Gabon, 50 children with P falciparum malaria were treated with intravenous quinine, and received either mechanical antipyresis alone, or in combination with paracetamol. Rectal body temperature and parasitaemia were recorded every 6 h for 4 days. Plasma concentrations and inducible concentrations of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-6 were measured every 24 h. In addition, production of oxygen radicals was measured in both groups.
                The mean fever clearance time was 32 h for children treated with paracetamol and 43 h for those who received mechanical antipyresis alone; however, this 11 h difference was not significant (95% CI -2 to 24 h; p = 0.176). Parasite clearance time was significantly prolonged in patients who received paracetamol with a difference of 16 h (8-24 h; p = 0.004). Plasma concentrations of TNF and interleukin-6 were similar in both groups during the study. However, the induced concentrations of TNF, and the production of oxygen radicals, were significantly lower in children treated with paracetamol than those who received mechanical antipyresis alone.
                These data suggest that paracetamol has no antipyretic benefits over mechanical antipyresis alone in P falciparum malaria. Moreover, paracetamol prolongs parasite clearance time, possibly by decreased production of TNF and oxygen radicals. Primary dysmenorrhoea is characterised by pain, cramping and backache at the time of menses. Despite the high prevalence of dysmenorrhoea, few sufficiently powered, placebo-controlled studies have examined the efficacy of over the counter analgesics in this condition. Furthermore, even fewer studies have directly examined the efficacy of analgesics on specific dysmenorrhoea symptoms. Research design and main outcome measures: This was a single-dose, placebo-controlled, double blind, crossover study carried out in 320 women with moderate-to-severe dysmenorrhoea pain. At 2 h following dosing, 1 g paracetamol plus 130 mg caffeine led to significantly greater pain relief compared to 1 g paracetamol alone (p < 0.05), 130 mg caffeine alone (p < 0.01) or placebo (p < 0.01). The combination was also significantly more effective in relieving abdominal cramping and backache compared to the other treatment arms. No major treatment related adverse events were reported during this study.
                When taken at recommended doses, both paracetamol and the combination of paracetamol and caffeine are safe and effective treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea. Consistent with results from other acute pain states, caffeine acts as an analgesic adjuvant and enhances the efficacy of paracetamol.
There are few trials that have directly compared the antipyretic properties of paracetamol against placebo or physical methods. Data on adverse events are limited. Establishing standard outcomes will help comparisons between studies and better meta-analysis.