Altitude Sickness in Climbers and Efficacy of NSAIDs Trial (ASCENT): randomized, controlled trial of ibuprofen versus placebo for prevention of altitude illness.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of ibuprofen versus placebo in preventing acute mountain sickness (AMS) and high altitude headache (HAH). METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-four healthy Western trekkers were recruited on the Everest approach at 4280 m or 4358 m and randomly assigned to receive either 600 mg of ibuprofen or placebo 3 times daily before and during ascent to 4928 m. One hundred eighty-three of 294 participants completed the trial. Of the participants who did not complete the trial, 62 were lost to follow-up and another 49 broke trial protocol. In an intent-to-treat analysis (232 participants), ibuprofen was found to be more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of AMS (24.4% vs 40.4%; P = .01) and the incidence of HAH (42.3% vs 60.5%; P < .01). Ibuprofen was also superior to placebo in reducing the severity of HAH (4.9% vs 14.7%; P = .01). The end point of oxygen saturation was also higher in the ibuprofen group (80.8 % vs 82.4%; P = .035). For the 183 participants who completed the trial and conformed to the protocol, the incidence of AMS between placebo and treatment groups was not significant (32.9% vs 22.7%; P = .129 for AMS incidence, 9.6% vs 8.2%; P = .74 for AMS severity, 54.8% vs 42.7%; P = .11 for HAH incidence, and 8.2% vs 3.6%; P = .18 for HAH severity). CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen was found to be effective in preventing AMS in the intent-to-treat analysis group but not in those who completed the trial. This loss of significance in the subjects who completed the trial may be explained by persons in the placebo group having a higher burden of illness and associated decreased compliance with the protocol. An important limitation of this study may be the possibility that ibuprofen can mask headache, which is a compulsory criterion for the diagnosis of AMS.

Prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled comparison of acetazolamide versus ibuprofen for prophylaxis against high altitude headache: the Headache Evaluation at Altitude Trial (HEAT).

OBJECTIVE: High altitude headache (HAH) is the most common neurological complaint at altitude and the defining component of acute mountain sickness (AMS). However, there is a paucity of literature concerning its prevention. Toward this end, we initiated a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the Nepal Himalaya designed to compare the effectiveness of ibuprofen and acetazolamide for the prevention of HAH. METHODS: Three hundred forty-three healthy western trekkers were recruited at altitudes of 4280 m and 4358 m and assigned to receive ibuprofen 600 mg, acetazolamide 85 mg, or placebo 3 times daily before continued ascent to 4928 m. Outcome measures included headache incidence and severity, AMS incidence and severity on the Lake Louise AMS Questionnaire (LLQ), and visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five of 343 subjects completed the trial. HAH incidence was similar when treated with acetazolamide (27.1%) or ibuprofen (27.5%; P = .95), and both agents were significantly more effective than placebo (45.3%; P = .01). AMS incidence was similar when treated with acetazolamide (18.8%) or ibuprofen (13.7%; P = .34), and both agents were significantly more effective than placebo (28.6%; P = .03). In fully compliant participants, moderate or severe headache incidence was similar when treated with acetazolamide (3.8%) or ibuprofen (4.7%; P = .79), and both agents were significantly more effective than placebo (13.5%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen and acetazolamide were similarly effective in preventing HAH. Ibuprofen was similar to acetazolamide in preventing symptoms of AMS, an interesting finding that implies a potentially new approach to prevention of cerebral forms of acute altitude illness.