The effect of mianserin add-on, on the intensity of opioid withdrawal symptoms during detoxification program—a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, prospective study

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1154-1167 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Herman ◽  
D. Shamir ◽  
R. Bar-Hamburger ◽  
C.G. Pick ◽  
S. Schreiber
2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 336-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra A. Mertens ◽  
Sheila Torres ◽  
Carl Jessen

A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of clomipramine hydrochloride in cats with psychogenic alopecia. Twenty-five cats were randomly assigned to receive clomipramine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg orally q 24 hours) or placebo for 56 days. Eleven cats in each group completed the trial. The results of this study showed that clomipramine hydrochloride failed to demonstrate significant changes in the number of grooming bouts, hair regrowth, and the area of alopecia in cats with psychogenic alopecia when compared to a placebo. It was uncertain whether these results reflected a lack of drug efficacy, insufficient treatment duration, or an insufficient number of cases enrolled.


1990 ◽  
Vol 157 (5) ◽  
pp. 748-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Loimer ◽  
R. Schmid ◽  
K. Lenz ◽  
O. Presslich ◽  
J. Grünberger

In a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 18 patients, methohexitone blocked objective signs of opiate withdrawal caused by a bolus injection of naloxone. Furthermore, in continuing the naloxone therapy for 48 hours, no withdrawal signs appeared. Levels of withdrawal distress returned to normal levels within six days. This approach can be regarded as an effective and well tolerated withdrawal therapy with low drop-out rates.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Beumer ◽  
Pauline Hamers ◽  
Alyt Oppewal ◽  
Dederieke Maes-Festen

Abstract Background In people with intellectual disability (ID) and challenging behaviour, antipsychotics (AP) are often used off-label and for a long period. Despite a lack of evidence for efficacy for challenging behaviour and concerns about common and clinically relevant side effects, complete withdrawal often fails. We postulate three possible hypotheses for withdrawal failure: 1. Influence of subjective interpretation of behavioural symptoms by caregivers and family; 2. Beneficial effects from AP treatment on undiagnosed psychiatric illness, through improvement in sleep or a direct effect on behaviour; and 3. Misinterpretation of withdrawal symptoms as a recurrence of challenging behaviour. Methods To investigate our hypotheses, we have designed a multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in which AP (pipamperone or risperidone) are withdrawn. In the withdrawal group, the AP dose is reduced by 25% every 4 weeks and in the control group the dose remains unaltered. Behaviour, sleep, psychiatric disorders, withdrawal symptoms and side effects will be measured and compared between the two groups. If drop-out from the protocol is similar in both groups (non-inferiority), the first hypothesis will be supported. If drop-out is higher in the withdrawal group and an increase is seen in psychiatric disorders, sleep problems and/or behavioural problems compared to the control group, this suggests effectiveness of AP, and indications for AP use should be reconsidered. If drop-out is higher in the withdrawal group and withdrawal symptoms and side effects are more common in the withdrawal group compared to the control group, this supports the hypothesis that withdrawal symptoms contribute to withdrawal failure. Discussion In order to develop AP withdrawal guidelines for people with ID, we need to understand why withdrawal of AP is not successful in the majority of people with ID and challenging behaviour. With this study, we will bridge the gap between the lack of available evidence on AP use and withdrawal on the one hand and the international policy drive to reduce prescription of AP in people with ID and challenging behaviour on the other hand. Trial registration This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 7232) on October 6, 2018 (www.trialregister.nl).


Pain ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann J. Langmayr ◽  
Alois A. Obwegeser ◽  
Andreas B. Schwarz ◽  
Ilse Laimer ◽  
Hanno Ulmer ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 933-939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasuaki Nakagawa ◽  
Shogo Mukai ◽  
Shigeru Yamada ◽  
Masayuki Matsuoka ◽  
Eri Tarumi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 536
Author(s):  
Irfan Yousuf Wani ◽  
Sheikh Saleem ◽  
Iqra Mehraj

Background: Migraine is one of the commonest neurological disorder seen by neurologists. Many different medications are available to be used as prophylactic agent. We conducted this study to determine the efficacy of Lisinopril as a prophylactic drug for migraine in our region.Methods: Our study is a randomised double blind, placebo controlled, cross over, prospective study. 60 patients were included in this study. Treatment period of 12 weeks with one 10 mg lisinopril tablet once daily for one week then two 10 mg lisinopril tablets once daily for 11 weeks, followed by a two week wash out period. Second treatment period of one placebo tablet once daily for one week and then two placebo tablets for 11 weeks. Thirty participants followed this schedule, and 30 received placebo followed by lisinopril. Primary end points were number of hours with headache, number of days with headache, number of days with migraine.Results: Statistical analysis of data from 41 patients that completed this study revealed that hours with headache, days with headache, days with migraine, and headache severity index were significantly reduced by 16%, 16% , 23% and 17% , respectively, with lisinopril as compared to placebo.Conclusions: This study favours lisinopril as an effective prophylactic drug for migraine. The adverse effects of lisinopril, though of significant frequency, have been mild to moderate in severity but were well tolerated by even normotensive subjects.


2012 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. SART.S9706 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Penetar ◽  
Alison R. Looby ◽  
Elizabeth T. Ryan ◽  
Melissa A. Maywalt ◽  
Scott E. Lukas

Bupropion's (Zyban® SR) effectiveness to treat symptoms experienced in marihuana withdrawal was tested in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with chronic, heavy marihuana users. Participants maintained their usual marihuana intake until Quit Day after which they were required to cease intake of THC products for 14 days. A Withdrawal Discomfort Score revealed that for 7 days immediately following cessation, placebo-treated subjects reported more symptoms than bupropion-treated subjects. Self-reported craving for marihuana increased for the placebo-treated group but not for those treated with bupropion. Measures of sleep and cognitive performance were not different between the two groups. Participants in the bupropion treatment arm were more likely to complete the study than those randomized to the placebo arm (50% completion for bupropion vs. 33% completion for placebo). These results suggest that bupropion may be useful for alleviating marihuana withdrawal symptoms and be useful in subject retention during long-term cessation programs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document