Patient-reported outcomes of therapy with two brands of ibuprofen
Objective: To investigate patients’ reported outcome following medication with two brands of 400 mg ibuprofen used to alleviate musculoskeletal pains.
Methods: Adult peasant manual laborers (85) who met criteria were randomly assigned to receive either of the brands (A or B). Data on pain alleviation were gathered using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Present Pain Intensity (PPI), and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGII) scales. Interval data obtained from the two brands were compared using the Students’ t-test at 95% confidence interval.
Results: There were 42 participants, mean age=29.2 (SD=1.37) assigned to brand A and 43 (mean age=28.8 SD=1.14) in brand B of ibuprofen 400 mg. Brand B was consistently rated higher than brand A. Scores for medication efficacy were 10.4 (SD=1.65) (brand A) and 11.4 (SD=1.68) (brand B); t=2.768, P=0.007. Alleviation of pain symptoms: 10.8 (SD=1.64) and 11.6 (SD=1.72); t = 2.194, P=0.031. Similarly, rated scores on the impact of pain on quality of life were 10.5 (SD=2.00) and 12.1 (SD=1.85); t=3.830, P<0.001. There was a reduction in Present Pain Intensity scores by 32.7% and 34.3% for Brand A and brand B participants respectively. The decrease in Visual Analog pain scale score was 35.9% and 37.3% for brand A and brand B participants respectively. The decrease in SF-MPQ was by 85.1% and 69.9% for the brand A and brand B groups respectively. The clinical global impression of improvement for both groups of patients indicated an improvement rate of 71.4% and 61.9% for brand A and 81.4% and 74.4% for brand B participants.
Conclusion: This clinical study infers that though the two brands of ibuprofen 400 mg are legally pharmaceutical equivalent, they are not clinically equivalent. In most of the parameters evaluated, brand B was rated more efficacious than brand A. This explains the patients’ preferences and demand for this brand of ibuprofen in the Nigerian community.
2. Main CJ, Williams AC. ABC of Psychological Medicine, Musculoskeletal Pain. BMJ 2002;325:534-537.
3. US Pharmacist, Low Back Pain: Patient Management: Available at http://www.USpharmacist.com/index.asp?page=ce/105253/default.htm (Accessed 14/04/06).
4. Kim CS. (2002). Musculoskeletal Pain in Adolescents. Available at Http/www.Post gradmed.com/issues/2002/04-02/km.htm (Accessed 04/06/2006).
5. Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL, Glassman PA, Nair K, DeLapp D, Dirstine J, Avorn J, Asch SM. The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:332-337.
6. Meredith P. Bioequivalence and other unresolved issues in generic substitutions. Clin Therap. 2003;25(11):2875-2890.
7. Sharoky M, Perkal M, Tabatznik B, Cane RCJ, Costello K, Goodwin P Comparative efficacy and bioequivalence of a brand-name and a generic triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide combination product. Clin Pharm. 1989;8:496-500.
8. Eldon MA, Kinkel AW, Daniel JE, Latts JR. Bioavailability of propranolol hydrochloride tablet formulations: application of multiple dose crossover studies. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1989; 10:69-76.
9. Gleiter CH, Gundert-Remy U. Bioinequivalence and drug toxicity. How great is the problem and what can be done? Drug Safety. 1994 11:1-6.
10. White A (1998). Measuring pain. Available at http://www.medical-acupuncture.co.uk/journal/1998nov/six.shtml (Accessed 04/06/2006).
11. Laurie Barclay L, Lie D. Pain numeric rating scale may be only moderately accurate for pain screening. J Gen Intern Med. Published online August 1, 2007. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563080 (Accessed 26/03/2008)
12. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health; a guide to rating Scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, 1996 New York.
13. Vincent CA, Chapman CR. Pain measurement and the assessment of acupuncture treatment. Acupuncture in Medicine, 1989 6(1):14-19.
14. Galluzzi KE (2006). Management of Neuropathic Pains Available at http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/105/suppl_4/S12 (Accessed 14/06/2006)
15. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1975; 30:191-197.
16. Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983;17:45-56.
17. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophilising Scale. Development and Validation. Psychological Assessment. 1995;7(4):524.
18. Galler BS, Jessen MP. Development and preliminary validation of pain measures specific for neuropathic pains; the Neuropathic Pain Scale. Neurology. 1997;48:332-338.
19. Kochar DK, Garg P, Bumb RA, Kochar SK, Mehta RD, Beniwal R, Rawat N. Divalproex sodium in the management of post-herpetic neuralgia: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. QJM. 2005;98(1):29-34.
20. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med [A]. 1981 May;15(3 Pt 1):221-229.
The authors hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey to Pharmacy Practice: (1) the right to grant permission to republish or reprint the stated material, in whole or in part, without a fee; (2) the right to print pr epublish copies for free distribution or sale; and (3) the right to republish the stated material in any format (electronic or printed). In addition, the undersigned affirms that the article described above has not previously been published, in whole or part, is not subject to copyright or other rights except by the author(s), and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, except as communicated in writing to Pharmacy Practice with this document.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.