[Analgesic use in Germany : Survey of the years 2008 to 2019]. / Schmerzmittelgebrauch in Deutschland : Eine Erhebung über die Jahre 2008 bis 2019.

BACKGROUND: There are previously published data on the per capita use of analgesics in Germany, but only to 2005. In the present analysis, data for the years 2008-2019 were evaluated. The use of prescription and nonprescription analgesics was investigated and possible influencing factors were discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The per capita use of prescription and nonprescription analgesics was determined based on data on prescriptions and cash purchases in pharmacies (IMS Pharmascope®, Wiener Neudorf, Austria). Moreover, an evaluation according to active substances was performed for nonprescription drugs. In addition, pharmaceutical manufacturers' advertising expenditures and changes in distribution channels were analyzed as possible influencing factors. RESULTS: During the observation period 2008-2019, the use of prescription analgesics in Germany increased, while the use of nonprescription analgesics decreased. Single-agent drugs constitute the majority of sales of nonprescription analgesics. The share of combination drugs has decreased in recent years. CONCLUSION: The use of nonprescription analgesics in Germany decreased between 2008 and 2019. The trend as of 1995, which was observed in a previous investigation, is therefore continuing. External factors, such as the increase in advertising expenses or easier access via mail-order pharmacies, do not appear to influence use.

Prevalence and patient-rated relevance of complexity factors in medication regimens of community-dwelling patients with polypharmacy.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of complexity factors in the medication regimens of community-dwelling patients with more than five drugs and to evaluate the relevance of these factors for individual patients. METHODS: Data were derived from the HIOPP-6 trial, a controlled study conducted in 9 general practices which evaluated an electronic tool to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment. The prevalence of complexity factors was based on the results of the automated analysis of 139 patients' medication data. The relevance assessment was based on the patients' rating of each factor in an interview (48 patients included for analysis). RESULTS: A median of 5 (range 0-21) complexity factors per medication regimen were detected and at least one factor was observed in 131 of 139 patients. Almost half of these patients found no complexity factor in their medication regimen relevant. CONCLUSION: In most medication regimens, complexity factors could be identified automatically, yet less than 15% of factors were indeed relevant for patients as judged by themselves. When assessing complexity of medication regimens, one should especially consider factors that are both particularly frequent and often challenging for patients, such as use of inhalers or tablet splitting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The HIOPP-6 trial was registered retrospectively on May 17, 2021, in the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257.

Patients' perception on generating medication plans in an interprofessional medication management program: a mixed-methods study.

A medication plan (MP) provides an overview of a patient's entire medication. In the interprofessional medication management program ARMIN (ARzneiMittelINitiative Sachsen-Thueringen), MPs are jointly generated by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs). We aimed to assess patients' initial acceptance of the service, how they use the printed MP, and whether they perceived a benefit from it. This was evaluated with mixed-methods: a cross sectional written (quantitative) survey followed by semi-structured (qualitative) interviews. The data were analysed separately and compared. Qualitative data were analysed by thematic analysis. For the survey, 103 patients (mean 73 years) were involved. Benefits indicated were: improved communication between GPs and CPs, safer handling of the medication, and increased knowledge on dosages and indications. Ninety-six percent of the patients used their MP, 51% regularly. Regular use was significantly associated with older age, higher number of drugs, and need for assistance with the medication. Ten patients were interviewed. Results from interviews agreed with the results from the survey but revealed some additional aspects (e.g., patients reported an increased feeling of safety). Health-care professionals should consider providing MPs for their patients. This interprofessional cooperation also meets patient's need for safety in health issues.

Individual factors increasing complexity of drug treatment-a narrative review.

PURPOSE: Complexity of drug treatment is known to be a risk factor for administration errors and nonadherence promoting higher healthcare costs, hospital admissions and increased mortality. Number of drugs and dose frequency are parameters often used to assess complexity related to the medication regimen. However, factors resulting from complex processes of care or arising from patient characteristics are only sporadically analyzed. Hence, the objective of this review is to give a comprehensive overview of relevant, patient-centered factors influencing complexity of drug treatment. METHODS: A purposeful literature search was performed in MEDLINE to identify potential complexity factors relating to the prescribed drug (i.e. dosage forms or other product characteristics), the specific medication regimen (i.e. dosage schemes or additional instructions), specific patient characteristics and process characteristics. Factors were included if they were associated to administration errors, nonadherence and related adverse drug events detected in community dwelling adult patients. RESULTS: Ninety-one influencing factors were identified: fourteen in "dosage forms", five in "product characteristics", twelve in "dosage schemes", nine in "additional instructions", thirty-one in "patient characteristics" and twenty in "process characteristics". CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings are limited by the non-systematic search process and the heterogeneous results, the search shows the influence of many factors on the complexity of drug treatment. However, to evaluate their relevance for individual patients, prospective studies are necessary.

Development of an algorithm to detect and reduce complexity of drug treatment and its technical realisation.

BACKGROUND: The increasing complexity of current drug therapies jeopardizes patient adherence. While individual needs to simplify a medication regimen vary from patient to patient, a straightforward approach to integrate the patients' perspective into decision making for complexity reduction is still lacking. We therefore aimed to develop an electronic, algorithm-based tool that analyses complexity of drug treatment and supports the assessment and consideration of patient preferences and needs regarding the reduction of complexity of drug treatment. METHODS: Complexity factors were selected based on literature and expert rating and specified for integration in the automated assessment. Subsequently, distinct key questions were phrased and allocated to each complexity factor to guide conversation with the patient and personalize the results of the automated assessment. Furthermore, each complexity factor was complemented with a potential optimisation measure to facilitate drug treatment (e.g. a patient leaflet). Complexity factors, key questions, and optimisation strategies were technically realized as tablet computer-based application, tested, and adapted iteratively until no further technical or content-related errors occurred. RESULTS: In total, 61 complexity factors referring to the dosage form, the dosage scheme, additional instructions, the patient, the product, and the process were considered relevant for inclusion in the tool; 38 of them allowed for automated detection. In total, 52 complexity factors were complemented with at least one key question for preference assessment and at least one optimisation measure. These measures included 29 recommendations for action for the health care provider (e.g. to suggest a dosage aid), 27 training videos, 44 patient leaflets, and 5 algorithms to select and suggest alternative drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Both the set-up of an algorithm and its technical realisation as computer-based app was successful. The electronic tool covers a wide range of different factors that potentially increase the complexity of drug treatment. For the majority of factors, simple key questions could be phrased to include the patients' perspective, and, even more important, for each complexity factor, specific measures to mitigate or reduce complexity could be defined.

[Simplifying complex drug therapies : Challenges and solutions]. / Komplexe Arzneimitteltherapien vereinfachen : Herausforderungen und Lösungsansätze.

The difficulties of managing a complex medication regimen are often underestimated in outpatient care. A large number of drugs (polypharmacy) and complicated dosage schemes or dosage forms may overstrain patients. Indeed, wrong drug administration can impair treatment success or cause adverse drug events.Patients are often unaware of the medication administration errors. Furthermore they do not voice administration problems, often because they are not aware of the potential to optimize their drug therapy. Medication regimen complexity can often be reduced by simple measures. However, feasible concepts for reducing medication regimen complexity in a structured way have been lacking in routine care so far.Electronic decision support facilitates systematic and efficient identification of factors that increase the complexity of a medication regimen. Furthermore, electronic decision aids may enable physicians and pharmacists to take appropriate measures in order to reduce medication regimen complexity. Personalizing the analysis and resulting measures to reduce medication regimen complexity might increase readiness of patients to implement changes in treatment and, thus, probably increase adherence. The first results of a prospective trial that is supported by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) Innovationsfonds (HIOPP-6, Komplexitätsreduktion in der Polypharmazie unter Beachtung von Patientenpräferenzen) will be available in autumn 2018 and answer these questions.

Critical appraisal of genotype assessment in molybdenum cofactor deficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Molybdenum cofactor deficiency (MoCD) is an ultra-orphan, life-threatening disease. Substrate substitution therapy has successfully been performed in single cases of MoCD type A and clinical trials are underway for drug registration. We present an innovative approach for classification of genotype severity to test the hypothesis that milder sequence variants in MoCD result in a less severe disease phenotype quantitated by patient survival. METHODS: All available worldwide published cases with clinical and genetic data were included (n = 40). We stratified the already published disease causing sequence variants as mild or severe with the use of in silico prediction programs, where possible and assessed the possible impact of the variants on the expression of the gene or function of the expressed protein. In a compound heterozygous situation the mildest sequence variant determined the genotype. Subsequently, clinical manifestations and outcomes of both groups were compared. RESULTS: Patients with a severe genotype showed a median survival of 15 months and had a lower probability of survival compared to patients with mild genotypes who were all alive at last reported follow-up (p = 0.0203, Log-rank test). DISCUSSION: The severity of the genotype assessed by in silico prediction and further classification explained survival in molybdenum cofactor deficiency and may therefore be considered a confounder for the outcome of therapeutic clinical trials requiring adjustment in the clinical trial design or analysis. These results should further be investigated by future in vitro or in vivo functional studies. Caution should be taken with this approach for the classification of variants in molecular genetic diagnostics or genetic counseling.

Novel Treatments for Rare Cancers: The U.S. Orphan Drug Act Is Delivering-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rare cancers are a heterogeneous group of conditions with highly unmet medical needs. Although infrequent in individuals, rare cancers affect millions of people who deserve effective treatments. Therefore, we systematically analyzed the impact of the U.S. Orphan Drug Act of 1983 on delivery of novel treatments for rare cancers. METHODS: Quantitative cross-sectional analysis was conducted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Orphan Drug Product database according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement criteria between 1983 and 2015. RESULTS: Since 1983, a total of 177 approvals have originated from 1,391 orphan drug designations to treat rare cancers, which represents 36% of all approvals within the U.S. orphan drug act (n = 492). Two compounds (1%) to treat rare cancer were withdrawn after approval. Median time from designation to approval was 2.49 years (interquartile range 1.13-4.64) and decreased significantly over time (p < .001, linear regression). Over the last decade, rare cancer treatments have been transformed from nonspecific cytotoxic agents toward targeted therapies, such as protein kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, representing the largest groups of innovative rare cancer treatments today. Most compounds were approved to treat solid tumors and hematological malignancies. CONCLUSION: The U.S. Orphan Drug Act and associated incentives, such as 7 years of marketing exclusivity, have fostered delivery of novel treatments for rare cancers. More than one-third of all orphan drug approvals address needs of patients suffering from rare cancers. Over the last decade, the understanding of tumorigenesis and genetic driver mutations in different tumor entities has produced innovative treatments, of which many were first approved within the U.S. Orphan Drug Act. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Over the last 30 years, the U.S. Orphan Drug Act successfully delivered numerous novel treatments for rare cancers, of which some were subsequently used in other, nonorphan indications. The understanding of molecular mechanisms of diseases is directly connected to the search for novel therapies. The constant pursuit to translate basic research findings into clinical practice is a crucial prerequisite to address unmet medical needs in rare cancers, as in other rare diseases. Oncological drug development proves to be a major player in overall orphan drug research, displayed by more than one-third of all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved orphan drugs with oncological indications.

Guidance on how to achieve comprehensible patient information leaflets in four steps.

Comprehensible information leaflets can improve a patient's knowledge. However, in clinical studies leaflets are often introduced without meticulously verifying their comprehensibility. In an attempt to provide a feasible guidance on how to design comprehensible leaflets we complied and evaluated an easy-to-use development procedure. In January 2015, a literature search was performed to identify evidence for readily available quality assurance strategies as a starting point for a standardized strategy to develop and validate written patient information. The suggested development strategy is a consecutive four-step procedure that comprised already validated distinct quality assessments: (i) an initial requirement analysis specifying the needs and constraints of the target population and evidence-based preparation of the leaflets, (ii) a readability assessment, (iii) the Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument and (iv) iterative consumer test in the target population. The consecutive combination of pertinent and previously validated quality assessments provides an easy-to-use guidance on how to create comprehensibly written patient information, particularly for small-scale research projects with time and money constraints.

The impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of controlled trials assessing the impact of pharmaceutical care interventions (e.g. medication reviews) on medication underuse in older patients (≥65 years). METHODS: The databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for controlled studies, and data on interventions, patient characteristics and exposure, and outcome assessment were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'risk of bias' table. Results from reported outcomes were synthesized in multivariate random effects meta-analysis, subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: From 954 identified articles, nine controlled studies, mainly comprising a medication review, were included (2542 patients). These interventions were associated with significant reductions in the mean number of omitted drugs per patient (estimate from six studies with 1469 patients: - 0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61, -0.26) and the proportion of patients with ≥1 omitted drugs (odds ratio from eight studies with 1833 patients: 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.63). The only significant influential factor for improving success was the utilization of explicit screening instruments when conducting a medication review (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical care interventions, including medication reviews, can significantly reduce medication underuse in older people. The use of explicit screening instruments alone or in combination with implicit reasoning is strongly recommendable for clinical practice.

Safeguarding the process of drug administration with an emphasis on electronic support tools.

AIMS: The aim of this work is to understand the process of drug administration and identify points in the workflow that resulted in interventions by clinical information systems in order to improve patient safety. METHODS: To identify a generic way to structure the drug administration process we performed peer-group discussions and supplemented these discussions with a literature search for studies reporting errors in drug administration and strategies for their prevention. RESULTS: We concluded that the drug administration process might consist of up to 11 sub-steps, which can be grouped into the four sub-processes of preparation, personalization, application and follow-up. Errors in drug handling and administration are diverse and frequent and in many cases not caused by the patient him/herself, but by family members or nurses. Accordingly, different prevention strategies have been set in place with relatively few approaches involving e-health technology. CONCLUSIONS: A generic structuring of the administration process and particular error-prone sub-steps may facilitate the allocation of prevention strategies and help to identify research gaps.

Lack of Evidence for Blood Pressure Effects of Caffeine Added to Ibuprofen.

BACKGROUND: Caffeine enhances the efficacy of non-opioid analgesics. Data on the cardiovascular health effects of caffeine intake are controversial, and studies on the cardiovascular effects of medical caffeine use are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to explore the cardiovascular effects of an ibuprofen/caffeine combination in comparison to ibuprofen alone. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a previously reported bioequivalence study of a single dose of a fixed dose ibuprofen/caffeine combination (400/100 mg) vs. ibuprofen alone in a randomized, cross-over design in 36 healthy volunteers. Plasma catecholamines were analyzed to enhance mechanistic interpretation of the data. RESULTS: After exclusion of 10 protocol violators (pre-dosing intake of caffeine), vital signs were comparable over a 24-h period in the absence and presence of caffeine. Plasma catecholamine levels were also comparable. CONCLUSION: These data do not support the hypothesis that occasional intake of a small dose of caffeine as part of pain medication imposes a health risk due to vital sign changes. Based on the proven increase in efficacy, the addition of caffeine to non-opioid analgesics such as IBU has a favorable risk/benefit profile for occasional use.

Impact of the Neck and/or Shoulder Pain on Self-reported Headache Treatment Responses - Results From a Pharmacy-Based Patient Survey.

Neck and/or shoulder pain (NSP) frequently occurs together with headache. Therefore, we explored how patients with and without concomitant NSP differ in their baseline characteristics and in perceived treatment responses to an analgesic. An anonymous survey was performed among 895 patients with headache (735 self-reported tension-type headache [TTH]) who used an analgesic fixed-dose combination containing 400 mg ibuprofen and 100 mg caffeine as a non-prescription treatment. NSP was abundant among patients in our survey (60%) and was associated with >1 additional day of headache per month. Patients with NSP reported predominantly sedentary work more frequently than those without (40 vs. 29%); they also reported physical tension/poor posture as a perceived trigger factor more frequently (70 vs. 16%). The reported pain reduction was comparable in those with and without concomitant NSP regardless of whether assessed as mean pain rating (from about 6 to 1.5 on a 10-point rating scale), patients experiencing a ≥50% in pain reduction (89.6 vs. 88.8%) or becoming pain-free within 2 h (57 vs. 64%). However, recurrence of pain and use of another dose within the same day were more frequent with than without NSP. We conclude that concomitant NSP is frequent in patients with headache but does not substantially alter responses to a non-prescription medication.

Changing the medication documentation process for discharge: impact on clinical routine and documentation quality-a process analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In 2017, an in-house best-practice process for medication documentation was developed and implemented to meet the new German legal requirements concerning the management of patient discharge from the hospital. Because this law regulates the common steps of good discharge practices (eg, specification of discharge mediation documentation), we used its implementation to assess the impact of such a measure on the quality of medication documentation and related workflows in clinical routine. METHODS: By observing workflows and interviewing the affected employees, we analysed the medication workflow processes from admission to discharge of seven representative departments of a large university hospital before and early after implementation of a newly defined best-practice process. To investigate the implementation impact, following measures were determined overall and for five key process steps: quality of medication documentation as measured by predefined criteria, the adherence to the best-practice process (range 0%-100%), workload and potential shifts in responsibilities. RESULTS: Already early after implementation, all departments met the legal requirements and the quality of the medication documentation increased from low to high quality in most departments. Mean adherence to the best-practice process was 77% (range 60%-100%) with strictest adherence of 100% in one department. Thereby, the number of process steps and hence, likely also the workload increased in all departments. New tasks were mainly performed by physicians and in one department by pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: The new lawful best-practice process led to a higher quality in medication documentation at the cost of a higher workload for physicians, potentially limiting time for other care tasks. Therefore, it could be important to define areas of the medication documentation process in which physicians could be supported by other professions or new tools facilitating accurate medication documentation as the basis of continuity of care.

Development of an Electronic Tool to Assess Patient Preferences in Geriatric Polypharmacy (PolyPref).

Purpose: Medical decision-making in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy should include the individual patient's treatment preferences. We developed and pilot-tested an electronic instrument (PolyPref) to elicit patient preferences in geriatric polypharmacy. Patients and Methods: PolyPref follows a two-stage direct approach to preference assessment. Stage 1 generates an individual preselection of relevant health outcomes and medication regimen characteristics, followed by stage 2, in which their importance is assessed using the Q-sort methodology. The feasibility of the instrument was tested in adults aged ≥70 years with ≥2 chronic conditions and regular intake of ≥5 medicines. After the assessment with PolyPref, the patients rated the tool with regard to its comprehensibility and usability and assessed the accuracy of the personal result. Evaluators rated the patients' understanding of the task. Results: Eighteen short-term health outcomes, 3 long-term health outcomes, and 8 medication regimen characteristics were included in the instrument. The final population for the pilot study comprised 15 inpatients at a clinic for geriatric rehabilitation with a mean age of 80.6 (± 6.0) years, a median score of 28 (range 25-30) points on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and a mean of 11.6 (± 3.6) regularly taken medicines. Feedback by the patients and the evaluators revealed ratings in favor of understanding and comprehensibility of 86.7% to 100%. The majority of the patients stated that their final result summarized the most important aspects of their pharmacotherapy (93.3%) and that its ranking order reflected their personal opinion (100%). Preference assessment took an average of 35 (± 8.5) min, with the instrument being handled by the evaluator in 14 of the 15 participants. Conclusion: Preference assessment with PolyPref was feasible in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy, offering a new strategy for the standardized evaluation of patient priorities in geriatric pharmacotherapy.

HIOPP-6 - a pilot study on the evaluation of an electronic tool to assess and reduce the complexity of drug treatment considering patients' views.

BACKGROUND: A complex drug treatment might pose a barrier to safe and reliable drug administration for patients. Therefore, a novel tool automatically analyzes structured medication data for factors possibly contributing to complexity and subsequently personalizes the results by evaluating the relevance of each identified factor for the patient by means of key questions. Hence, tailor-made optimization measures can be proposed. METHODS: In this controlled, prospective, exploratory trial the tool was evaluated with nine general practitioners (GP) in three study groups: In the two intervention groups the tool was applied in a version with (GI_with) and a version without (GI_without) integrated key questions for the personalization of the analysis, while the control group (GC) did not use any tools (routine care). Four to eight weeks after application of the tool, the benefits of the optimization measures to reduce or mitigate complexity of drug treatment were evaluated from the patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients regularly using more than five drugs could be included for analysis. GP suggested 117 optimization measures in GI_with, 83 in GI_without, and 2 in GC. Patients in GI_with were more likely to rate an optimization measure as helpful than patients in GI_without (IRR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.2-10.3). Thereby, the number of optimization measures recommended by the GP had no significant influence (P = 0.167). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that an automated analysis considering patient perspectives results in more helpful optimization measures than an automated analysis alone - a result which should be further assessed in confirmatory studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered retrospectively at the German Clinical Trials register under DRKS-ID DRKS00025257 (17/05/2021).

Development and Pilot-Testing of Key Questions to Identify Patients' Difficulties in Medication Administration.

PURPOSE: The development and testing of key questions suitable to identify patients' difficulties with medication administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a consecutive five-step process to draft key questions regarding 43 aspects of medication administration that can be difficult for patients who manage a complex drug treatment: Step 1) Identification of potentially error-prone characteristics of drug treatment (such as certain dosage forms) and initial draft of key questions. Step 2) Assessment of how comprehensible the questions are for patients. Step 3) Pre-testing of exemplary key questions with patients and monitoring of patient's actual medication administration behavior. Step 4) Evaluation by general practitioners of how well the questions may be integrated into actual patient visits. Step 5) Final approval of the questions in an expert panel. Thereafter, we pilot-tested exemplary questions with 36 patients (43 tests). In the course of this pilot-testing, the patients' answers to the key questions were tested against both their actual behavior during medication administration and against their answers to more general questions regarding potential difficulties with medication administration. RESULTS: More than half of the key questions (N = 24/43) were revised at least once during the development process. During the pilot-testing, 55.8% of the pilot-tests (N = 24/43) revealed medication administration difficulties. It was observed that the key questions identified significantly more difficulties (N = 17) than the general questions (N = 8; P = 0.021, positive predictive value = 94.4% vs 88.9%). In one case, both a key question and a general question identified difficulties, which, however, was not confirmed during the drug administration demonstration, indicating a false positive rate of 5.3% in both cases. CONCLUSION: We developed key questions aimed at detecting administration errors with a high specificity and a significantly higher sensitivity than general questions, suggesting that the resource-intensive demonstration of medication administration can be reserved for the detection of rarer and uncommon administration errors.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ibuprofen Lysinate in Comparison to Ibuprofen Acid for Acute Postoperative Dental Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Ibuprofen acid is poorly soluble in the stomach, thus reaching maximum plasma levels at approximately 90 min post-dose. Ibuprofen lysinate has been developed to accelerate absorption of ibuprofen to shorten the time to analgesic efficacy. This study compared analgesic efficacy and onset of effect of a single dose of ibuprofen lysinate or ibuprofen acid in patients undergoing third molar extraction. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, parallel-group single-dose study. Adults (18-60 years) undergoing extraction of ≥ 1 third molar were randomized 2:2:1 to ibuprofen lysinate, ibuprofen acid, or placebo postoperatively. Pain relief (PAR, 5-point scale, 0 = none to 4 = complete pain relief) and pain intensity (PI, 100 mm visual analog scale) were assessed between 15 and 360 min post-dose. The primary endpoint was the weighted sum of PAR scores at 6 h (TOTPAR). Time to onset of effect, global assessment of efficacy, and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 351 patients received ibuprofen lysinate (N = 141), ibuprofen acid (N = 139), or placebo (N = 71). Both active treatments significantly reduced pain compared with placebo, from 15 min post-dose to 6 h (TOTPAR: ibuprofen lysinate: 19.57; ibuprofen acid: 19.96; placebo: 8.27). Ibuprofen lysinate was significantly more effective than placebo, but non-inferior to ibuprofen acid, at providing pain relief over 6 h. There was no significant difference between ibuprofen lysinate and ibuprofen acid for onset of analgesia. Both ibuprofen formulations were well tolerated; all adverse events were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of ibuprofen lysinate is non-inferior to ibuprofen acid in terms of analgesic efficacy, onset of action, and tolerability in patients who have recently undergone dental surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2006-006942-33. Plain language summary available for this article.