Uses and abuses of antipyretic therapy.

774 F undoubtedly the most common symptom confronting the physician who treats children. It is fought as though it were the patient’s primary disease, and its mere presence is often accepted as being sufficient indication for the institution of antipyretic therapy. It is not surprising, therefore, that therapeutists and pharmaceutical concerns have energetically sought new and better drugs for the control of fever. In the past few years there has appeared on the market a number of new formulations which are purported to offer distinct advantages in terms of antipyretic potency, acceptance by children, and/or reduced toxicity. It is axiomatic that virtually any claim regarding a drug can be supported by published data, if the proper study is selected and interpretation is sufficiently influenced by conviction. Particularly is this true of antipyretic-analgesic drugs, where such factons as lability in the case of fever and lack of objectivity in the case of pain, make evaluation difficult. The claims and counterclaims which have been made concerning antipynetic drugs have led to considerable confusion and misunderstanding on the part of clinicians in general. The purpose of this presentation is to attempt to provide some clarification of this problem.