Open-label taste-testing study to evaluate the acceptability of both strawberry-flavored and orange-flavored amylmetacresol/2,4-dichlorobenzyl alcohol throat lozenges in healthy children.

BACKGROUND: Acute sore throat (pharyngitis) is one of the most common illnesses for which children are seen by primary care physicians. Most cases are caused by viruses and are benign and self-limiting. Clinically proven, over-the-counter throat lozenges provide rapid and effective relief of acute sore throat symptoms, and are increasingly important in self-management of this condition. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study (International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN34958871) was to evaluate the acceptability of two licensed, commercially available sore throat lozenges containing amylmetacresol and 2,4-dichlorobenzyl (AMC/DCBA)--one strawberry flavored and the other orange flavored--in healthy children. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label, single-dose, crossover, taste-testing study in children recruited via a clinical database and advertisements over a 3.5-week period. SETTING: Potentially eligible participants were invited to attend the taste-testing session at a clinic. PARTICIPANTS: At the screening session, which took place either before or on the day of taste testing, details of relevant medical history, medication, and demographics were recorded. Of the 108 screened subjects, 102 were recruited. These were healthy male and female children aged 6-12 years. INTERVENTION: Each child cleansed their palate with water and water biscuits before tasting a strawberry-flavored lozenge (Strepsils® strawberry sugar free, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare Limited, Nottingham, UK; PL 00063/0395), which was sucked for 1 minute and then expelled. The orange-flavored lozenge (Strepsils® orange with vitamin C, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare Limited, Nottingham, UK; PL 016242152) was tasted at least 15 minutes later following further cleansing of the palate. The spontaneous reaction of the child on tasting each lozenge was observed and recorded. Subjects were asked to indicate their liking for each lozenge, using a 7-point hedonic facial scale, and were required to answer a series of questions relating to what they liked and disliked about the taste and the feel of the lozenge in the mouth and throat. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a hedonic facial score of >4. Secondary endpoints included the spontaneous reaction of the child on tasting the lozenge and responses to questions related to taste. RESULTS: The taste of the lozenge was scored >4 (i.e. 'good', 'really good', or 'super good') by 85.3% of subjects for the strawberry flavor and 49.0% for the orange flavor (p < 0.0001). The mean (standard deviation) score was 5.72 (1) for the strawberry-flavored lozenge and 4.35 (2) for the orange-flavored lozenge. The proportion of subjects willing to take the lozenge again was 94% for the strawberry flavor and 56% for the orange flavor. CONCLUSIONS: Strawberry-flavored AMC/DCBA lozenges were liked by, and acceptable to, the majority of the children. AMC/DCBA orange-flavored lozenges were also liked by, and acceptable to, approximately half the children. Overall, both strawberry and orange would be suitable flavors for lozenges intended for children when they suffer from sore throat.

A randomised controlled trial of ibuprofen, paracetamol or a combination tablet of ibuprofen/paracetamol in community-derived people with knee pain.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of single versus combination non-prescription oral analgesics in community-derived people aged 40 years and older with chronic knee pain. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, four-arm, parallel-group, active controlled trial investigating short-term (day 10) and long-term (week 13) benefits and side-effects of four regimens, each taken three times a day: ibuprofen (400 mg); paracetamol (1000 mg); one fixed-dose combination tablet (ibuprofen 200 mg/paracetamol 500 mg); two fixed-dose combination tablets (ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg). RESULTS: There were 892 participants (mean age 60.6, range 40-84 years); 63% had radiographic knee osteoarthritis and 85% fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria for osteoarthritis. At day 10, two combination tablets were superior to paracetamol (p<0.01) for pain relief (determined by mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain; n=786). At 13 weeks, significantly more participants taking one or two combination tablets rated their treatment as excellent/good compared with paracetamol (p=0.015, p=0.0002, respectively; n=615). The frequency of adverse events was comparable between groups. However, by 13 weeks, decreases in haemoglobin (≥1 g/dl) were observed in some participants in all groups. Twice as many participants taking two combination tablets had this decrease compared with those on monotherapy (p<0.001; paracetamol, 20.3%; ibuprofen, 19.6%; one or two combination tablets, 24.1%, 38.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen/paracetamol combination analgesia, at non-prescription doses, confers modest short-term benefits for knee pain/osteoarthritis. However, in this population, paracetamol 3 g/day may cause similar degrees of blood loss as ibuprofen 1200 mg/day, and the combination of the two appears to be additive. Study no ISRCTN77199439.

A randomised, five-parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of analgesic combinations including a novel single-tablet combination of ibuprofen/paracetamol for postoperative dental pain.

Combination analgesia is often recommended for the relief of severe pain. This was a double-blind, 5-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomised, single-dose study designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel single-tablet combination of ibuprofen and paracetamol with that of an ibuprofen/codeine combination, and a paracetamol/codeine combination, using the dental impaction pain model. Subjects with at least 3 impacted third molars and experiencing moderate to severe postoperative pain were randomised to receive: 1 or 2 tablets of a single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 200mg/paracetamol 500mg; 2 tablets of ibuprofen 200 mg/codeine 12.8mg; 2 tablets of paracetamol 500mg/codeine 15mg; or placebo. Results for the primary endpoint, the sum of the mean scores of pain relief combined with pain intensity differences over 12hours, demonstrated that 1 and 2 tablets of the single-tablet combination of ibuprofen/paracetamol were statistically significantly more efficacious than 2 tablets of placebo (P<0.0001) and paracetamol/codeine (P⩽0.0001); furthermore, 2 tablets offered significantly superior pain relief to ibuprofen/codeine (P=0.0001), and 1 tablet was found noninferior to this combination. Adverse events were uncommon during this study and treatment emergent adverse events were statistically significantly less frequent in the groups taking the ibuprofen/paracetamol combination compared with codeine combinations. In conclusion, 1 or 2 tablets of a single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 200mg/paracetamol 500mg provided highly effective analgesia that was comparable with, or superior to, other combination analgesics currently indicated for strong pain. A single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 200mg/paracetamol 500mg provides highly effective analgesia, comparable or superior to other combination analgesics indicated for strong pain.

Bioavailability of ibuprofen following oral administration of standard ibuprofen, sodium ibuprofen or ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic properties of sodium ibuprofen and ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer with standard ibuprofen acid tablets. METHODS: Twenty-two healthy volunteers were enrolled into this randomised, single-dose, 3-way crossover, open-label, single-centre, pharmacokinetic study. After 14 hours' fasting, participants received a single dose of 2x200 mg ibuprofen acid tablets (standard ibuprofen), 2x256 mg ibuprofen sodium dihydrate tablets (sodium ibuprofen; each equivalent to 200 mg ibuprofen acid) and 2x200 mg ibuprofen acid incorporating 60 mg poloxamer 407 (ibuprofen/poloxamer). A washout period of 2-7 days separated consecutive dosing days. On each of the 3 treatment days, blood samples were collected post dose for pharmacokinetic analyses and any adverse events recorded. Plasma concentration of ibuprofen was assessed using a liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry procedure in negative ion mode. A standard statistical ANOVA model, appropriate for bioequivalence studies, was used and ratios of 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Tmax for sodium ibuprofen was less than half that of standard ibuprofen (median 35 min vs 90 min, respectively; P=0.0002) and Cmax was significantly higher (41.47 microg/mL vs 31.88 microg/mL; ratio test/reference=130.06%, 90% CI 118.86-142.32%). Ibuprofen/poloxamer was bioequivalent to the standard ibuprofen formulation, despite its Tmax being on average 20 minutes shorter than standard ibuprofen (median 75 mins vs 90 mins, respectively; P=0.1913), as the ratio of test/reference=110.48% (CI 100.96-120.89%), which fell within the 80-125% limit of the CPMP and FDA guidelines for bioequivalence. The overall extent of absorption was similar for the three formulations, which were all well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In terms of Tmax, ibuprofen formulated as a sodium salt was absorbed twice as quickly as from standard ibuprofen acid. The addition of poloxamer to ibuprofen acid did not significantly affect absorption.

Onset of analgesia with sodium ibuprofen, ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer and acetaminophen--a single-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with post-operative dental pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset of action and efficacy of sodium ibuprofen (ibuprofen sodium dihydrate) and ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer (ibuprofen/poloxamer) with that of acetaminophen and placebo in patients with post-operative dental pain. METHODS: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, active comparator, two-centre study assessing the analgesic efficacy of sodium ibuprofen (512 mg, equivalent to 400 mg ibuprofen acid), ibuprofen/poloxamer (containing 400 mg ibuprofen acid and 120 mg poloxamer 407), acetaminophen (1000 mg) and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after third molar extraction (n = 322). Onset of action was assessed using the two-stopwatch technique, and pain intensity and relief were measured using validated traditional descriptor scales. RESULTS: Significantly more patients achieved confirmed perceptible pain relief and meaningful pain relief with sodium ibuprofen (96.3%, P < 0.0001) and ibuprofen/poloxamer (90.0%, P = 0.0005) than with acetaminophen (67.5%). The onset of action of both ibuprofen formulations was comparable with that of acetaminophen up to 45 min post-dose; a marked divergence in onset times in favour of the ibuprofen formulations occurred from 45 min onward. Mean values for the area under the pain relief and pain intensity differences curve (0-6 h) were significantly greater for sodium ibuprofen (3.46) and ibuprofen acid (3.49) than for acetaminophen (2.25) (P < 0.001). Other pain relief and pain intensity endpoints favoured both ibuprofen formulations over acetaminophen. Distractibility from pain (6 h) was significantly greater with the ibuprofen formulations than with acetaminophen (P = 0.008 for sodium ibuprofen; P = 0.03 for ibuprofen/poloxamer). In patients receiving ibuprofen, pain interfered less with daily activities (at 1 and 6 h) than in those receiving acetaminophen (P

An in vitro study to assess facial and ocular deposition from Respimat Soft Mist inhaler.

Respimat Soft Mist() inhaler (SMI) is a novel multidose propellant-free inhaler device for delivery of inhaled drugs to patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In vitro studies have been undertaken to assess facial and ocular deposition from Respimat SMI in several potential misuse situations. A placebo aqueous drug formulation in Respimat SMI was radiolabeled by addition of (99m)Tc. Deposition was quantified by gamma camera on a removable facemask that was fitted over the head of a resuscitation mannequin. The eyes were simulated by adhesive plaster patches. When Respimat SMI was fired in three preselected positions away from the head, total face deposition (% ex-valve dose) averaged 7.3%, 7.8%, and 9.1%, and eye deposition averaged 0.6%, 0.1%, and 0.3%. When the inhaler was fired into a simulated exhalation, upper face deposition (mean 3.8%) and eye deposition (mean 0.1%) were also small. It is concluded that low deposition on the face, and especially in the eyes, is to be expected when Respimat SMI is fired accidentally outside the body, or is fired at the same time as the patient exhales. When Respimat SMI is misused in the ways described in this study, there is likely to be little potential for unwanted side effects resulting from ocular deposition.

Deposition of corticosteroid aerosol in the human lung by Respimat Soft Mist inhaler compared to deposition by metered dose inhaler or by Turbuhaler dry powder inhaler.

Fourteen mild-to-moderate asthmatic patients completed a randomized four-way crossover scintigraphic study to determine the lung deposition of 200 microg budesonide inhaled from a Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (Respimat SMI), 200 microg budesonide inhaled from a Turbuhaler dry powder inhaler (Turbuhaler DPI, used with fast and slow peak inhaled flow rates), and 250 microg beclomethasone dipropionate inhaled from a pressurized metered dose inhaler (Becloforte pMDI). Mean (range) whole lung deposition of drug from the Respimat SMI (51.6 [46-57]% of the metered dose) was significantly (p < 0.001) greater than that from the Turbuhaler DPI used with both fast and slow inhaled flow rates (28.5 [24-33]% and 17.8 [14-22]%, respectively) or from the Becloforte pMDI (8.9 [6-12]%). The deposition pattern within the lungs was more peripheral for Respimat SMI than for Turbuhaler DPI. The results of this study showed that Respimat SMI deposited corticosteroid more efficiently in the lungs than either of two widely used inhaler devices, Turbuhaler DPI or Becloforte pMDI.