Show simple item record

AuthorJibril, Farah
AuthorSharaby, Sherif
AuthorMohamed, Ahmed
AuthorWilby, Kyle J.
Available date2016-11-09T10:37:06Z
Publication Date2015
Publication NameThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacyen_US
Identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v68i3.1458
CitationJibril F, Sharaby S, Mohamed A, Wilby KJ. Intravenous versus Oral Acetaminophen for Pain: Systematic Review of Current Evidence to Support Clinical Decision-Making. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. 2015;68(3):238-247.
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10576/4986
AbstractBackground: Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen is increasingly used around the world for pain control for a variety of indications. However, it is unclear whether IV administration offers advantages over oral administration. Objective: To identify, summarize, and critically evaluate the literature comparing analgesic efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics for IV and oral dosage forms of acetaminophen. Data Sources: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases was supplemented with keyword searches of Science Direct, Wiley Library Online, and Springer Link databases for the period 1948 to November 2014. The reference lists of identified studies were searched manually. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized controlled trials comparing IV and oral dosage forms of acetaminophen were included if they assessed an efficacy, safety, or pharmacokinetic outcome. For each study, 2 investigators independently extracted data (study design, population, interventions, follow-up, efficacy outcomes, safety outcomes, pharmacokinetic outcomes, and any other pertinent information) and completed risk-of-bias assessments. Data Synthesis: Six randomized clinical trials were included. Three of the studies reported outcomes pertaining to efficacy, 4 to safety, and 4 to pharmacokinetics. No clinically significant differences in efficacy were found between the 2 dosage forms. Safety outcomes were not reported consistently enough to allow adequate assessment. No evidence was found to suggest that increased bioavailability of the IV formulation enhances efficacy outcomes. For studies reporting clinical outcomes, the results of risk-of-bias assessments were largely unclear. Conclusions: For patients who can take an oral dosage form, no clear indication exists for preferential prescribing of IV acetaminophen. Decision-making must take into account the known adverse effects of each dosage form and other considerations such as convenience and cost. Future studies should assess multiple-dose regimens over longer periods for patients with common pain indications such as cancer, trauma, and surgery.
Languageen
PublisherCanadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists
Subjectacetaminophen
Subjectanalgesia
Subjectintravenous
Subjectpain
Subjectparacetamol
TitleIntravenous versus Oral Acetaminophen for Pain: Systematic Review of Current Evidence to Support Clinical Decision-Making
TypeArticle
Pagination238-247
Issue Number3
Volume Number68
ESSN1920-2903


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record