Clinical equivalence of IV paracetamol compared to IV dipyrone for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer

References

• Depre M, van Hecken A, Verbesselt R, et al. Tolerance and pharmacokinetics of propacetamol, a paracetamol formulation for intravenous use. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1992;6:259–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Palazón J, Tortosa JA, Martínez-Lange JF, Pérez-Flores D. Intravenous administration of propacetamol reduces morphine consumption after spinal fusion surgery. Anesth Analg 2001;92:1473–6
   Google Scholar
• Delbos A, Boccard E. The morphine-sparing effect of propacetamol in orthopedic postoperative pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 1995;10;279–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varrassi G, Marinangeli F, Agró F, et al. A double-blinded evaluation of propacetamol versus ketorolac in combination with patient-controlled analgesia morphine: analgesic effect and tolerability after gynecologic surgery. Anesth Analg 1999;88:611–6
   Google Scholar
• Flouvat B, Leneveu A, Fitoussi S, et al. Bioequivalence study comparing a new paracetamol solution for injection and propacetamol after single intravenous infusion in healthy subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004;42:50–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moller PL, Juhl GI, Payen-Champenois C, Skoglund LA. Intravenous acetaminophen (paracetamol): comparable analgesic efficacy, but better local safety than its prodrug, propacetamol, for postoperative pain after third molar surgery. Anesth Analg 2005;101:90–6
   Google Scholar
• Murat I, Baujard C, Foussat C, et al. Tolerance and analgesic efficacy of a new i.v. paracetamol solution in children after inguinal hernia repair. Paediatr Anaesth 2005;15:663–70
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt E, Vainchtock A, Nicoloyannis N, Locher F. Ready for use, injectable paracetamol: easier, safer and economically beneficial. Pharm Hosp 2001;36:9–18
   Google Scholar
• Landwehr S, Kiencke P, Giesecke T, et al. A comparison between IV paracetamol and IV metamizol for postoperative analgesia after retinal surgery. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1569–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nightingale CE. Development of psycho-metric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesth Analg 1999;88:83–90
   Google Scholar
• DeLoach LJ, Higgins MS, Caplan AB, Stiff JL. The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variability and correlation with a numeric scale. Anesth Analg 1998;86:102–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pater C. Equivalence and non-inferiority trials – are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs? Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc 2004;5:1–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lorenzetti BB, Ferreira SH. Mode of analgesic action of dipyrone: direct antagonism of inflammatory hyperalgesia. Eur J Pharmacol 1985;114:375–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson KH, Helmreich J, Jurna I. Activation of inhibition from the periaqueductal grey matter mediates central analgesic effect of metamizol (dipyrone). Pain 1986;27:373–90
   Google Scholar
• Ibáñez L, Vidal X, Ballarin E, Laporte JR. Agranulozytosis associated with dipyrone (metamizol). Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005;60:821–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arellano F, Sacristán JA. Metamizole: reassessment of its therapeutic role. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990;38:617–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulf H, Neugebauer E, Maier C. Die Behandlung akuter perioperativer und posttraumatischer Schmerzen. Empfehlungen einer interdisziplinären Expertenkommission. Stuttgart-New York: Georg Thieme Verlag; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Camu F, Van Lersberghe C, Lauwers MH. Cardiovascular risks and benefits of perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment. Drugs 1992;44(Suppl 5):42–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greene WA, Concato J, Feinstein AR. Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by evidence? Ann Intern Med 2000;132:715–22
   Google Scholar
• Huson L. Statistical assessment of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority in clinical trials. CRfocus 2001;12:1–4
   Google Scholar
• Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 2004;14:798–804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skovlund E, Bretthauer M, Grotmol T, et al. Sensitivity of pain rating scales in an endoscopy trial. Clin J Pain 2005;21:292–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myles PA, Troedel S, Boquest M, Reeves M. The pain visual analog scale: is it linear or nonlinear? Anesth Analg 1999;89:1517–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myles PS, Urquhart N. The linearity of the visual analog scale in patients with severe acute pain. Anaesth Intensive Care 2005;33:54–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosier EM, Iadarola MJ, Coghill RC. Reproducibility of pain measurement and pain perception. Pain 2002;98:205–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:1153–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz P, Garutti I, Diaz S, Fernandez-Quero L. Metamizol versus propacetamol: comparative study of the hemodynamic and antipyretic effects in critically ill patients. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2002;49:391–6
   Google Scholar
• Avellaneda A, Gómez A, Martos F, et al. The effect of a single intravenous dose of metamizol 2 g, ketorolac 30 mg and propacetamol 1 g on haemodynamic parameters and postoperative pain after heart surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2000;17:85–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Jimenez J, Franco-Patino R, Chargoy-Vera J, Olivares-Sosa R. Clinical efficacy of mild analgesics in pain following gynaecological or dental surgery: report on multicentre studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980;10\(Suppl 2):355S–358S
   Google Scholar
• Jarde O, Boccard E. Parenteral versus oral route increases paracetamol efficacy. Clin Drug Invest 1997;14:474–81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar