| |
September 2002
Acetaminophen and ibuprofen are among the most commonly used
drugs in children, if not the most commonly used. Despite this commonality and
years of experience with their use, controversy over the most appropriate means
of using these drugs continues to exist. Which agent is most effective? What
dose and dosing schedule should be used? Does it matter which agent and dose
are used? Is alternating one agent with the other more effective than using one
agent alone?
These questions probably arise
frequently, although they may not be given much conscious thought. Clinicians
are generally aware that fever, the main indication for use of acetaminophen or
ibuprofen, in-and-of-itself, is not inherently concerning. The underlying cause
of the fever, the overall health of the patient and the adverse effects of the
fever on the patient are generally worthy of more consideration by clinicians.
Published evidence indicates that fever plays a beneficial role in the immune
response to infection. On the other hand, parents often view fever as a serious
concern and an indication for immediate drug therapy. Fever phobia
has been documented and described in the literature. Because of these
considerations, it becomes interesting to review the published literature for
the use of these agents.
Acetaminophen has been available as an antipyretic for use in
children for over 25 years. Ibuprofen has become available over-the-counter
(OTC) only relatively recently (approximately seven years ago). The relative
efficacy and dosing of acetaminophen and ibuprofen remain controversial.
Acetaminophen frequently is mentioned in published review articles as the
antipyretic agent of choice, while ibuprofen is also commonly recommended to be
given for high fevers, implying it is more potent or is
a more effective antipyretic. Acetaminophen may often be recommended initially
perhaps because of the years of clinical experience we have with it, and
because of its proven safety profile (when given in therapeutic doses).
Ibuprofen may be regarded by some as more potent (and thus more
effective) because of published studies (see below) and perhaps because of its
change from prescription to OTC availability.
![[bar]](../art/gradient.gif) Studies reviewed
Numerous studies have been published comparing acetaminophen with
ibuprofen. A thorough evaluation of all these studies is beyond the scope of
this column. However, several recent trials will be discussed. While numerous
studies have been published, the quality and usefulness of many of them are
limited. Concerns can be raised about the appropriateness of comparative
dosing, therapeutic endpoints used to evaluate efficacy, questionable
statistical analysis and small patient numbers. The most concerning limitation
of many of these studies is comparative dosing. The generally accepted dosing
for acetaminophen is 10-15 mg/kg/dose given every four to six hours (maximum of
five doses/24 hours); dosing for ibuprofen is 5-10 mg/kg/dose every six to
eight hours (maximum 40 mg/kg/24 hours). The OTC labeled dose for ibuprofen is
7.5 mg/kg/dose. Many studies have compared acetaminophen with ibuprofen
mg-for-mg (ie, 10 mg/kg ibuprofen compared with acetaminophen 10
mg/kg), an inappropriate comparison. Additional studies have compared various
other doses, eg, ibuprofen 7 mg/kg to acetaminophen 8 mg/kg or ibuprofen 7.5
mg/kg to acetaminophen 10 mg/kg. The most appropriate comparison would seem to
be minimal dose vs. minimal dose or, more importantly, maximal dose vs. maximal
dose (ie, ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose compared with acetaminophen 15 mg/kg/dose).
Comparing acetaminophen and ibuprofen at these doses in a randomized, blinded,
controlled manner in a large number of patients, with assessment for clinical
improvement, would be most revealing for comparisons of efficacy. It would be
important to assess appropriate efficacy parameters absolute temperature
reduction or temperature reduction in concert with clinical efficacy
(eg, assessment for improvement in patient comfort or fluid and nutritional
intake). Few studies meet these criteria.
One study compared ibuprofen liquid at doses of 2.5, 5 or 10
mg/kg every six hours to acetaminophen liquid 15 mg/kg every six hours in a
randomized, double-blind, multidose (24-48 hours), parallel-group manner.
Sixty-one febrile (39°-40.5°C) children were evaluated; the most common
diagnosis was viral pharyngitis. Ibuprofen at doses of 2.5 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg
was less effective (rate of temperature reduction and maximal reduction of
fever) than ibuprofen 10 mg/kg and acetaminophen 15 mg/kg for the first dose
only. For all doses thereafter there were no differences in temperature
reduction among the four treatment groups. Ibuprofen 10 mg/kg was similarly
effective to acetaminophen 15 mg/kg for all doses. Other published studies
comparing maximal doses of each agent were not identified in a search of the
literature.
As described above, other studies have compared acetaminophen to
ibuprofen in a variety of doses and in a variety of study designs (many of
which are of questionable quality). Some studies found equivalent efficacy
among various doses (eg, ibuprofen 5 mg/kg = acetaminophen 12.5 mg/kg;
ibuprofen 10.3 mg/kg = acetaminophen 9.8 mg/kg [mean doses]), while other study
authors concluded that ibuprofen was more effective (eg, ibuprofen 7.5 mg/kg
and 10 mg/kg > acetaminophen 10 mg/kg). When differences in temperature
reduction were found among acetaminophen and ibuprofen, the difference
typically was 0.8°C or less. For most of these studies, correlations with
clinical effect (ie, patient comfort) were not made. Thus, one may wonder if
such a difference, while perhaps statistically significant, is clinically
significant. One study evaluated not only comparative efficacy of acetaminophen
(12.5 mg/kg) and ibuprofen (5, 10 mg/kg) in a single-dose design but also
assessed the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of each drug. A complex
assessment of various measurements of temperature reduction was completed. The
investigators concluded that various factors may affect the response to
antipyretic therapy, including initial temperature and age of the child.
Antipyretic efficacy was increased in children with lower initial temperatures
(<38.8°C), a finding the authors described as nonlinear
pharmacodynamics. Maximal antipyresis was found to occur at approximately
four hours for both drugs. The investigators additionally concluded that
ibuprofen 10 mg/kg was more effective for antipyresis than acetaminophen 12.5
mg/kg.
Thus, it is reasonable to question the results of studies
comparing ibuprofen 10 mg/kg with acetaminophen at doses <15 mg/kg.
Pharmacodynamic studies of acetaminophen alone suggest that it exhibits a
dose-response effect for doses greater than 10 mg/kg. Comparisons of maximal
doses of each agent would appear to be the most appropriate.
An additional limitation on many published comparative studies of
acetaminophen and ibuprofen includes a lack of clinical assessment for drug
efficacy. One may surmise that a reduction in absolute febrile temperature
equates to clinical improvement, manifesting as subjective improvement or
improvements in nutritional intake or sleep. With differences in temperature
reduction typically of less than 1°C between ibuprofen and acetaminophen in
studies, differences in clinical scores may not be significant. One study
(ibuprofen 10 mg/kg compared to acetaminophen 12.5 mg/kg) did evaluate for
changes in irritability and clinical condition using clinical scoring scales
and found no differences among the groups.
![[bar]](../art/gradient.gif) Alternating doses
The use of alternating doses of acetaminophen and ibuprofen is a
common practice that has no published literature support as compared with the
use of acetaminophen or ibuprofen alone. A survey of pediatric practitioners
published in 2000 found interesting results. The investigators surveyed 161
pediatric practitioners during a professional meeting. Fifty percent of
respondents stated that they recommend alternating acetaminophen with ibuprofen
for fever to their patients. Thirty-one percent of these did not recommend a
specific method for alternating agents. Of those who did specify a regimen,
several methods were given. The most commonly recommended method was
acetaminophen every four hours alternating with ibuprofen every six hours.
Extrapolating this method to the 12-hour mark leads to the potential for
administration of both drugs, as both are due at this time. With this method,
and others, it is not difficult to imagine the confusion caregivers may
develop. Thirty-three percent of surveyed practitioners generally recommend
acetaminophen 10 mg/kg every 4 hours (a dose potentially producing less than
desirable results) as their treatment of choice. Respondents were also surveyed
on their basis for choosing a specific regimen. Twenty-nine percent stated
American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines on the treatment of fever,
guidelines which do not exist. The results of this survey indicate room for
improvement in the therapy of fever.
The treatment of fever, a very common therapeutic scenario in the
pediatric population, remains controversial. Both acetaminophen and ibuprofen
are effective antipyretic agents. They should be considered equal in their
efficacy. Published studies concluding that one agent is more effective than
the other are limited in their design, often evaluating these drugs in
inappropriate comparative dosage regimens. The use of alternating acetaminophen
with ibuprofen has not been proven to be beneficial over the use of maximal
doses of either agent and may only lead to confusion among caregivers and an
increased potential for dosing errors. It is important to educate caregivers on
the natural course of fever and its clinical impact as well as the goals of
treatment. Although both acetaminophen and ibuprofen are safe when used
appropriately, the potential for serious hepatotoxicity with acetaminophen
dictates that practitioners review and stress with caregivers the importance of
proper dosing, dose measurement, dosage form selection and poison prevention.
|
Acetaminophen vs. Ibuprofen |
|
Considerations in the treatment of fever |
Comment |
|
Fever education for caregivers is important |
·
fevers (even high) are not inherently dangerous · the absolute
temperature is less important than other clinical parameters · goal of antipyretic
therapy is primarily increased patient comfort and clinical improvement (eg,
increased nutritional intake) and not necessarily reduction in absolute
temperature |
|
Acetaminophen and ibuprofen are equally effective as
antipyretics |
·
acetaminophen: 10-15 mg/kg q 4-6h (no more than five doses/24
hours) ·
ibuprofen: 5-10 mg/kg q 6-8h (no more than four doses/24 hours) · maximal doses
should be used for maximal effect (ie, acetaminophen 15 mg/kg or ibuprofen 10
mg/kg) |
|
Review specific mg-dose, volume-dose, range of doses and
pharmaceutical dosage form with caregivers |
·
discuss use of an appropriate dosage form (ask caregivers for their
preference or what they are currently using) · base doses on weight
(vs. age) when possible · both acetaminophen
and ibuprofen are available in numerous dosage forms and strengths, which may
easily lead to confusion and dosing errors · examples include
acetaminophen infant drops (100 mg/ml) or childrens suspension (32
mg/ml), and childrens chewable tablets (80 mg) or junior strength
chewable tablets (160 mg) |
|
Alternating doses of acetaminophen with ibuprofen |
·
not recommended · no proven
benefit · may
be confusing to caregivers |
|
Source: Edward A. Bell, PharmD,
BCPS |
For more information:
- Walson PD. Comparison of multidose ibuprofen and
acetaminophen therapy in febrile children. Am J Dis Child.
1992;146:626-32.
- Wilson JT. Single-dose, placebo-controlled comparative study
of ibuprofen and acetaminophen antipyresis in children. J Pediatr.
1991;119:803-11.
- McIntyre J. Comparing efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen
and paracetamol in fever. Arch Dis Childhood. 1996;74:164-7.
- Mayoral CE. Alternating antipyretics: is this an
alternative? Pediatrics. 2000;105:1009-1012.
- Temple AR. Pediatric dosing of acetaminophen. Pediatr
Pharmacol. 1983;3:321-7.
|