Cochrane in context: Combined and alternating paracetamol and ibuprofen therapy for febrile children.

Health-care professionals frequently recommend fever treatment regimens for children who either combine paracetamol and ibuprofen or alternate them.However, there is uncertainty about whether these regimens are better than using single agents and about the adverse effect profile of combination regimens. To assess the results and side effects of combining paracetamol and ibuprofen, or alternating them in consecutive treatments, compared with monotherapy for treating fever in children. In September 2013, we searched Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (2009-2011). We included randomized controlled trials that compared alternating or combined paracetamol and ibuprofen regimens with monotherapy in children with fever. One review author and two assistants independently screened the searches and applied the inclusion criteria. Two authors assessed risk of bias and graded the evidence independently. We conducted various analyses for different comparison groups (combined therapy versus monotherapy, alternating therapy versus monotherapy and combined therapy versus alternating therapy). Six studies, enrolling 915 participants, are included. Compared to administering a single antipyretic alone, administering combined paracetamol and ibuprofen to febrile children can result in a lower mean temperature at 1 hour after treatment (mean difference -0.27 ∘C, 95% confidence interval -0.45 to -0.08, two trials, 163 participants, moderate quality evidence). If no further antipyretics are given, combined treatment probably also results in a lower mean temperature at 4 hours (mean difference -0.70 ∘C, 95% confidence interval -1.05 to -0.35, two trials, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence), and in fewer children remaining or becoming febrile for at least 4 hours after treatment (relative risk 0.08, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.42, two trials, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence). Only one trial assessed a measure of child discomfort (fever, associated symptoms at 24 and 48 hours), but did not find a significant difference in this measure between the treatment regimens (one trial, 156 participants, evidence quality not graded). In practice, caregivers are often advised to initially provide a single agent (paracetamol or ibuprofen), and then provide a further dose of the alternative if the child;s fever fails to resolve or recurs. Giving alternating treatment in this manner may result in a lower mean temperature at 1 hour after the second dose (mean difference -0.60 ∘C, 95% confidence interval -0.94 to -0.26, two trials, 78 participants, low quality evidence), and may also result in fewer children remaining or becoming febrile for up to 3 hours after it is given (relative risk 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.55, two trials, 109 participants, low quality evidence). One trial assessed child discomfort (mean pain scores at 24, 48 and 72 hours), finding that these mean scores were lower, with alternating therapy, despite fewer doses of antipyretic being given overall (one trial, 480 participants, low quality evidence) Only one small trial compared alternating therapy with combined therapy. No statistically significant differences were seen in mean temperature or in the number of febrile children at 1, 4 or 6 hours (one trial, 40 participants, very low quality evidence). In all the trials, there were no serious adverse events that were directly attributed to the medications used. There is some evidence that both alternating and combined antipyretic therapies may be more effective at reducing temperatures than monotherapy alone. However, the evidence for improvements in measures of child discomfort remains inconclusive. There is insufficient evidence to decide which of combined or alternating therapy might be more beneficial. Future research needs to measure child discomfort using standardized tools, and assess the safety of combined and alternating antipyretic therapies.

Wong T ，Stang AS ，Ganshorn H ，Hartling L ，Maconochie IK ，Thomsen AM ，Johnson DW ... -  《-》

Combined and alternating paracetamol and ibuprofen therapy for febrile children.

Health professionals frequently recommend fever treatment regimens for children that either combine paracetamol and ibuprofen or alternate them. However, there is uncertainty about whether these regimens are better than the use of single agents, and about the adverse effect profile of combination regimens. To assess the effects and side effects of combining paracetamol and ibuprofen, or alternating them on consecutive treatments, compared with monotherapy for treating fever in children. In September 2013, we searched Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (2009-2011). We included randomized controlled trials comparing alternating or combined paracetamol and ibuprofen regimens with monotherapy in children with fever. One review author and two assistants independently screened the searches and applied inclusion criteria. Two authors assessed risk of bias and graded the evidence independently. We conducted separate analyses for different comparison groups (combined therapy versus monotherapy, alternating therapy versus monotherapy, combined therapy versus alternating therapy). Six studies, enrolling 915 participants, are included. Compared to giving a single antipyretic alone, giving combined paracetamol and ibuprofen to febrile children can result in a lower mean temperature at one hour after treatment (MD -0.27 °Celsius, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.08, two trials, 163 participants, moderate quality evidence). If no further antipyretics are given, combined treatment probably also results in a lower mean temperature at four hours (MD -0.70 °Celsius, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.35, two trials, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence), and in fewer children remaining or becoming febrile for at least four hours after treatment (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.42, two trials, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence). Only one trial assessed a measure of child discomfort (fever associated symptoms at 24 hours and 48 hours), but did not find a significant difference in this measure between the treatment regimens (one trial, 156 participants, evidence quality not graded). In practice, caregivers are often advised to initially give a single agent (paracetamol or ibuprofen), and then give a further dose of the alternative if the child's fever fails to resolve or recurs. Giving alternating treatment in this way may result in a lower mean temperature at one hour after the second dose (MD -0.60 °Celsius, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.26, two trials, 78 participants, low quality evidence), and may also result in fewer children remaining or becoming febrile for up to three hours after it is given (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55, two trials, 109 participants, low quality evidence). One trial assessed child discomfort (mean pain scores at 24, 48 and 72 hours), finding that these mean scores were lower, with alternating therapy, despite fewer doses of antipyretic being given overall (one trial, 480 participants, low quality evidence) Only one small trial compared alternating therapy with combined therapy. No statistically significant differences were seen in mean temperature, or the number of febrile children at one, four or six hours (one trial, 40 participants, very low quality evidence). There were no serious adverse events in the trials that were directly attributed to the medications used. There is some evidence that both alternating and combined antipyretic therapy may be more effective at reducing temperatures than monotherapy alone. However, the evidence for improvements in measures of child discomfort remains inconclusive. There is insufficient evidence to know which of combined or alternating therapy might be more beneficial.Future research needs to measure child discomfort using standardized tools, and assess the safety of combined and alternating antipyretic therapy.

Wong T ，Stang AS ，Ganshorn H ，Hartling L ，Maconochie IK ，Thomsen AM ，Johnson DW ... -  《-》

Combined and alternating paracetamol and ibuprofen therapy for febrile children.

Wong T ，Stang AS ，Ganshorn H ，Hartling L ，Maconochie IK ，Thomsen AM ，Johnson DW ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth.

Bailey E ，Worthington HV ，van Wijk A ，Yates JM ，Coulthard P ，Afzal Z ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Rifamycins (rifampicin, rifabutin and rifapentine) compared to isoniazid for preventing tuberculosis in HIV-negative people at risk of active TB.

Preventing active tuberculosis (TB) from developing in people with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is important for global TB control. Isoniazid (INH) for six to nine months has 60% to 90% protective efficacy, but the treatment period is long, liver toxicity is a problem, and completion rates outside trials are only around 50%. Rifampicin or rifamycin-combination treatments are shorter and may result in higher completion rates. To compare the effects of rifampicin monotherapy or rifamycin-combination therapy versus INH monotherapy for preventing active TB in HIV-negative people at risk of developing active TB. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; clinical trials registries; regional databases; conference proceedings; and references, without language restrictions to December 2012; and contacted experts for relevant published, unpublished and ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HIV-negative adults and children at risk of active TB treated with rifampicin, or rifamycin-combination therapy with or without INH (any dose or duration), compared with INH for six to nine months. At least two authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought clarifications from trial authors. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model if heterogeneity was significant. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach. Ten trials are included, enrolling 10,717 adults and children, mostly HIV-negative (2% HIV-positive), with a follow-up period ranging from two to five years. Rifampicin (three/four months) vs. INH (six months) Five trials published between 1992 to 2012 compared these regimens, and one small 1992 trial in adults with silicosis did not detect a difference in the occurrence of TB over five years of follow up (one trial, 312 participants; very low quality evidence). However, more people in these trials completed the shorter course (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30; five trials, 1768 participants; moderate quality evidence). Treatment-limiting adverse events were not significantly different (four trials, 1674 participants; very low quality evidence), but rifampicin caused less hepatotoxicity (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; four trials, 1674 participants; moderate quality evidence). Rifampicin plus INH (three months) vs. INH (six months) The 1992 silicosis trial did not detect a difference between people receiving rifampicin plus INH compared to INH alone for occurrence of active TB (one trial, 328 participants; very low quality evidence). Adherence was similar in this and a 1998 trial in people without silicosis (two trials, 524 participants; high quality evidence). No difference was detected for treatment-limiting adverse events (two trials, 536 participants; low quality evidence), or hepatotoxicity (two trials, 536 participants; low quality evidence). Rifampicin plus pyrazinamide (two months) vs. INH (six months) Three small trials published in 1994, 2003, and 2005 compared these two regimens, and two reported a low occurrence of active TB, with no statistically significant differences between treatment regimens (two trials, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) though, apart from one child from the 1994 trial, these data on active TB were from the 2003 trial in adults with silicosis. Adherence with both regimens was low with no statistically significant differences (four trials, 700 participants; very low quality evidence). However, people receiving rifampicin plus pyrazinamide had more treatment-limiting adverse events (RR 3.61, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.19; two trials, 368 participants; high quality evidence), and hepatotoxicity (RR 4.59, 95% 2.14 to 9.85; three trials, 540 participants; moderate quality evidence). Weekly, directly-observed rifapentine plus INH (three months) vs. daily, self-administered INH (nine months) A large trial conducted from 2001 to 2008 among close contacts of TB in the USA, Canada, Brazil and Spain found directly observed weekly treatment to be non-inferior to nine months self-administered INH for the incidence of active TB (0.2% vs 0.4%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.07, one trial, 7731 participants; moderate quality evidence). The directly-observed, shorter regimen had higher treatment completion (82% vs 69%, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.22, moderate quality evidence), and less hepatotoxicity (0.4% versus 2.4%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27; high quality evidence), though treatment-limiting adverse events were more frequent (4.9% versus 3.7%; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.64 moderate quality evidence) Trials to date of shortened prophylactic regimens using rifampicin alone have not demonstrated higher rates of active TB when compared to longer regimens with INH. Treatment completion is probably higher and adverse events may be fewer with shorter rifampicin regimens. Shortened regimens of rifampicin with INH may offer no advantage over longer INH regimens. Rifampicin combined with pyrazinamide is associated with more adverse events. A weekly regimen of rifapentine plus INH has higher completion rates, and less liver toxicity, though treatment discontinuation due to adverse events is probably more likely than with INH.

Sharma SK ，Sharma A ，Kadhiravan T ，Tharyan P ... -  《-》