Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Terfenadine with Pseudoephedrine and Terfenadine alone in Allergic Rhinitis

1998 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-255
Author(s):  
Eugene N. Myers ◽  
Naresh K. Panda ◽  
S. B. S. Mann
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Single Treatment ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Combination Treatment Group ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Z Value ◽  
The Difference

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 41 adult patients to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of terfenadine and pseudoephedrine with that of terfenadine alone. Efficacy of treatment evaluated by the physician and patients showed an excellent rating in 45.45% patients in the combination treatment group compared with an excellent rating in 10.53% in the single treatment group. The difference between both treatments was statistically significant, with a z value of 1.660 ( p < 0.05). The combination of terfenadine and pseudoephedrine was found to result in faster relief in a greater number of patients than terfenadine alone. However, both drugs were well tolerated.

Value of Whole-Body Washing With Chlorhexidine for the Eradication of Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureus:A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 1036-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Wendt ◽  
S. Schinke ◽  
M. Württemberger ◽  
K. Oberdorfer ◽  
O. Bock-Hensley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Solution Treatment ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Antiseptic Solution ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Double Blinded

Background.Whole-body washing with antiseptic solution has been widely used as part of eradication treatment for colonization with methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA), but evidence for the effectiveness of this measure is limited.Objective.To study the efficacy of whole-body washing with chlorhexidine for the control of MRSA.Design.Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial.Setting.University Hospital of Heidelberg and surrounding nursing homes.Patients.MRSA carriers who were not treated concurrently with antibiotics effective against MRSA were eligible for the study.Intervention.Five days of whole-body washing with either 4% chlorhexidine solution (treatment group) or with a placebo solution. All patients received mupirocin nasal ointment and chlorhexidine mouth rinse. The outcome was evaluated 3, 4, 5, 9, and 30 days after treatment with swab samples taken from several body sites.Results.Of 114 patients enrolled in the study (56 in the treatment group and 58 in the placebo group), 11 did not finish treatment (8 from the treatment group and 3 from the placebo group [P= .02]). At baseline, the groups did not differ with regard to age, sex, underlying condition, site of MRSA colonization, or history of MRSA eradication treatment. Eleven patients were MRSA-free 30 days after treatment (4 from the treatment group and 7 from the placebo group [P= .47]). Only groin-area colonization was significantly better eradicated by the use of chlorhexidine. The best predictor for total eradication was a low number of body sites positive for MRSA. Adverse effects were significantly more frequent in the treatment group than in the placebo group (any symptom, 71% vs 33%) but were reversible in most cases.Conclusion.Whole-body washing can reduce skin colonization, but it appears necessary to extend eradication measures to the gastrointestinal tract, wounds, and/or other colonized body sites if complete eradication is the goal.Trial Registration.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00266448.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of intra-articular analgesics after knee arthroscopy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e035346
Author(s):  
Yuchen He ◽  
Hongyi He ◽  
Dong-Xing Xie ◽  
Xiaoxiao Li ◽  
Yilun Wang
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Knee Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Number Of Patients

IntroductionMost of the patients who received arthroscopic knee surgery will suffer moderate to severe pain, which can delay the rehabilitation process and increase the risk of postoperative complications. Therefore, seeking a safe and effective postoperative analgesia is necessary for promoting the application of arthroscopic surgery. This protocol aims to detail a planned systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and safety of single-dose intra-articular injection of analgesics for pain relief after knee arthroscopy.Method and analysisPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to 1 June 2020 to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the commonly used single-dose intra-articular analgesics (ie, morphine; bupivacaine (including levobupivacaine); ropivacaine and magnesium alone or in combination) with placebo or between each other for postoperative pain relief among patients who had received knee arthroscopy. The primary outcome is pain intensity at 2-hour and 24-hour postoperatively; the secondary outcomes include side effects (eg, knee effusion, nausea, vomiting and flushing), the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia and the time to first analgesic request. The methodological quality of the included RCTs will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias table. The Bayesian network meta-analysis will be conducted using WinBUGS V.1.4.3.Ethics and disseminationSince no private or confidential patient data will be contained in the reporting, approval from an ethics committee is not required. Our study raises no ethical issue, and the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019130876.

Pc.6 Acupressure for Dental Nausea: A Preliminary Report of a Prospective Randomised Double Blind Clinical Trial, Part 1

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAC Chate
Keyword(s):  
First Trimester ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
First Trimester Of Pregnancy ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Prior Application ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Acupressure effectively reduces the amount of nausea experienced, both in the first trimester of pregnancy, and after either opiates or cytotoxic agents. The aim of this randomised, controlled study was to establish whether it could also reduce any sensation of nausea related to the taking of maxillary dental impressions. The sample comprised 8 males and 14 females, with a mean age of 14.64 years and whose self-registration of nausea following an impression was greater than 33% of a 100mm visual analogue. The test involved a second impression with prior application of pressure on either PC.6, the sixth point on the Chinese pericardial meridian, or a placebo point on the forearm of the patient's dominant limb. A random mental choice as to which point to press was made by each patient, and double blind conditions prevailed. After the withdrawal of the impression, another visual analogue was marked. Of the 9 patients who had used the placebo point during the test impression, there had been a mean reduction of 29% in the scale of nausea experienced. Of the 13 who had used the PC.6 acupressure point, the mean reduction was 30%. The difference was not significant. Three and a half minutes of acupressure on PC.6 did not reduce the sensation of nausea induced by tactile stimulation of the soft palate in this small sample of susceptible patients.

Analgesic Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Ketorolac Tromethamine and Doleron for the Alleviation of Orthopaedic Post-Operative Pain

1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 324-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Johansson ◽  
G. Josefsson ◽  
J. Malstam ◽  
A. Lindstrand ◽  
A. Stenstroem
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Oral Dose ◽  
Single Oral Dose ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Ketorolac Tromethamine ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Parallel Group

The analgesic efficacy and safety of ketorolac tromethamine (ketorolac), a potent analgesic with anti-inflammatory and antipyretic activities, were evaluated and compared with Doleron, a combination analgesic, in 115 patients with moderate to severe orthopaedic post-operative pain. This was a randomized, double-blind (double-dummy), parallel-group comparison of a single oral dose of one capsule of 10 mg ketorolac with a single oral dose of two Doleron tablets (each tablet contained 150 mg dextropropoxyphene napsylate, 350 mg aspirin and 150 mg phenazone). During the 6 h following treatment, 80% of ketorolac treated patients and 82% of Doleron treated patients experienced adequate pain relief. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall analgesic efficacy between the treatment groups. Three patients (one on ketorolac, two on Doleron) withdrew because of adverse events (vomiting). Nausea (two patients in each treatment group), vertigo (none on ketorolac, three on Doleron) and sore throat (none on ketorolac, two on Doleron) were the only drug-related adverse events reported by more than one person in a treatment group during the trial. A total of 82% of patients given ketorolac and 76% given Doleron experienced no adverse events. A single oral dose of 10 mg ketorolac was shown to be as effective and safe as two Doleron tablets in the treatment of moderate to severe orthopaedic post-operative pain.

scholarly journals Effect of probiotics supplementation on acute diarrhea in infants: a randomized double blind clinical trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ngurah Sanjaya Putra ◽  
Sudaryat Suraatmaja ◽  
I Ketut Nomor Aryasa
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Immune Responses ◽  
Acute Diarrhea ◽  
Relative Risk Reduction ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Standard Management ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
The Mean

Background Probiotics has advantages as a supplement formanagement of infants with acute diarrhea. It influences theduration of diarrhea by enhancing immune responses, elaboratesantimicrobial substances and occupies intestinal mucosal sites,inhibits the attachment and the growth of pathogenic organismsby achieving competitive exclusion and microbial balance.Objective To assess the clinical effects of probiotics supplementationon acute diarrhea in infants.Methods This was a double blind, randomized clinical controlledtrial performed on infants aged 1-12 months old with acutediarrhea, hospitalized in Sanglah Hospital, Denpasar. Subjectswere divided into two groups; the treatment group had standardmanagement with adjuvant probiotics, while the control groupreceived standard management with placebo.Results From 70 infants enrolled in this study, the mean durationof diarrhea in treatment group was significantly shorter than thatin the placebo group, 49.03 hours (SE 3.09) (95%CI 42.98;55.08)vs 73.03 hours (SE 3.28) (95%CI 66.61;79.45); P=0.001.Regarding failure of the treatment, probiotics supplementationhad relative risk reduction (RRR) of 67% and absolute riskreduction (ARR) of 57%. In multivariate cox regression analysisit was found that only probiotics supplementation influenced theduration of acute diarrhea in infants.Conclusion Probiotics can shorten the duration of acute diarrhea,and is safe as an adjuvant to standard management for infantswith acute diarrhea.

Placebo-Controlled Comparison of Effervescent Acetylsalicylic Acid, Sumatriptan and Ibuprofen in the Treatment of Migraine Attacks

Cephalalgia ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 947-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
The EMSASI ◽  
HC Diener ◽  
G Bussone ◽  
H de Liano ◽  
A Eikermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acetylsalicylic Acid ◽  
Acute Treatment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Headache Severity ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Headache Relief ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Efficacy Criteria ◽  
Accompanying Symptoms ◽  
New Formulation

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in combination with metoclopramide has been frequently used in clinical trials in the acute treatment of migraine attacks. Recently the efficacy of a new high buffered formulation of 1000 mg effervescent ASA without metoclopramide compared to placebo has been shown. To further confirm the efficacy of this new formulation in comparison with a triptan and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ibuprofen) a three-fold crossover, double-blind, randomized trial with 312 patients was conducted in Germany, Italy and Spain. Effervescent ASA (1000 mg) was compared to encapsulated sumatriptan (50 mg), ibuprofen (400 mg) and placebo. The percentage of patients with reduction in headache severity from moderate or severe to mild or no pain (primary endpoint) was 52.5% for ASA, 60.2% for ibuprofen, 55.8% for sumatriptan and 30.6% for placebo. All active treatments were superior to placebo ( P < 0.0001), whereas active treatments were not statistically different. The number of patients who were pain-free at 2 h was 27.1%, 33.2%, 37.1% and 12.6% for those treated with ASA, ibuprofen, sumatriptan or placebo, respectively. The difference between ASA and sumatriptan was statistically significant ( P = 0.025). With respect to other secondary efficacy criteria and accompanying symptoms no statistically significant differences between ASA and ibuprofen or sumatriptan were found. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 4.1%, 5.7%, 6.6% and 4.5% of patients treated with ASA, ibuprofen sumatriptan or placebo. This study showed that 1000 mg effervescent ASA is as effective as 50 mg sumatriptan and 400 mg ibuprofen in the treatment of migraine attacks regarding headache relief from moderate/severe to mild/no pain at 2 h. Regarding pain-free at 2 h sumatriptan was most effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document