Smith William, Leyva Rina, Kellstein David, Arthur Edmund, Cruz-Rivera Mario
Alliance for Multispecialty Research, The University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, Tennessee.
GSK Consumer Healthcare, Madison, New Jersey.
Clin Ther. 2021 Jul;43(7):1213-1227. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.05.004. Epub 2021 Jul 23.
This study evaluated antipyretic efficacy and onset of a novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ibuprofen (IBU; 250 mg) and acetaminophen (APAP; 500 mg) compared with placebo and IBU or APAP monocomponents. MET: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, full-factorial study was conducted in healthy males aged 18 to 55 years with pyrexia induced by intravenous administration of reference standard endotoxin (RSE). After attainment of an oral temperature ≥38.1°C, subjects were randomized 3:3:3:1 to a double-blind single oral dose of FDC IBU/APAP 250 mg/500 mg, APAP 500 mg, IBU 250 mg, or placebo. Oral temperature was measured every 10 minutes for 2 hours, then every 30 minutes until 8 hours postdose. Time-weighted sum of temperature differences from baseline to 8 hours (WSTD) after study medication administration was the primary efficacy end point. Secondary end points included WSTD scores from 0 to 2 hours, 0 to 4 hours, 0 to 6 hours, and 6 to 8 hours; time to return to "normal" temperature; time to rescue medication use; and global drug evaluation. Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs).
Two hundred ninety subjects were randomized; 273 were included in the primary efficacy analysis. WSTD was significantly better for FDC IBU/APAP 250 mg/500 mg (P = 0.002), IBU 250 mg (P = 0.030), and APAP 500 mg (P = 0.023) versus placebo; there were no significant differences between active treatments. For WSTD, only the FDC was statistically significant versus placebo (P = 0.004). All active treatments were significantly better (P < 0.05) for WSTD and WSTD versus placebo; there were no differences in WSTD between cohorts. Temperature returned to normal during the 8-hour treatment period in ∼50% of subjects in each cohort. Only 1 subject (IBU cohort) took rescue medication. Post hoc analyses at early time points revealed significant treatment differences favoring FDC versus placebo and IBU for the WSTD from baseline during the 50- to 110-minute posttreatment window; for WSTD from baseline during the 80- to 110-minute posttreatment window, FDC provided significant treatment differences versus placebo and both monocomponents. Overall, 223 (76.9%) of 290 subjects experienced AEs related to RSE; only 2 subjects experienced treatment-related AEs (FDC, rash; placebo, ear pain).
Although the primary end point was not met, these results suggest that FDC IBU/APAP 250 mg/500 mg provides effective antipyresis with a faster onset versus equal doses of IBU and APAP alone. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02761980.
本研究评估了一种新型布洛芬(IBU;250毫克)与对乙酰氨基酚(APAP;500毫克)固定剂量复方制剂(FDC)与安慰剂、IBU或APAP单一组分相比的退热疗效和起效时间。方法:本单中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照、全因子研究纳入了18至55岁因静脉注射参考标准内毒素(RSE)而发热的健康男性。在口腔温度≥38.1°C后,受试者按3:3:3:1随机分为双盲单次口服剂量的FDC IBU/APAP 250毫克/500毫克、APAP 500毫克、IBU 250毫克或安慰剂组。在2小时内每10分钟测量一次口腔温度,然后每30分钟测量一次,直至给药后8小时。给药后从基线到8小时的温度差时间加权总和(WSTD)是主要疗效终点。次要终点包括0至2小时、0至4小时、0至6小时和6至8小时的WSTD评分;恢复到“正常”体温的时间;使用急救药物的时间;以及整体药物评价。通过不良事件(AE)评估安全性。结果:290名受试者被随机分组;273名受试者纳入主要疗效分析。与安慰剂相比,FDC IBU/APAP 250毫克/500毫克(P = 0.002)、IBU 250毫克(P = 0.030)和APAP 500毫克(P = 0.023)的WSTD显著更好;活性治疗组之间无显著差异。对于WSTD,只有FDC与安慰剂相比具有统计学意义(P = 0.004)。所有活性治疗组的WSTD和WSTD与安慰剂相比均显著更好(P < 0.05);各队列之间的WSTD无差异。在每个队列中,约50%的受试者在8小时治疗期内体温恢复正常。只有1名受试者(IBU队列)使用了急救药物。早期时间点的事后分析显示,在治疗后50至110分钟窗口内,FDC与安慰剂和IBU相比,从基线开始的WSTD有显著治疗差异;在治疗后80至110分钟窗口内,FDC与安慰剂和两种单一组分相比,从基线开始的WSTD有显著治疗差异。总体而言,290名受试者中有223名(76.9%)经历了与RSE相关的AE;只有2名受试者经历了与治疗相关的AE(FDC,皮疹;安慰剂,耳痛)。结论:尽管未达到主要终点,但这些结果表明,FDC IBU/APAP 250毫克/500毫克与单独使用等剂量的IBU和APAP相比,能提供有效的退热作用,且起效更快。ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02761980。