Flunarizine-Pizotifen Single-Dose Double-Blind Cross-Over Trial in Migraine Prophylaxis

Cephalalgia ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Cerbo ◽  
Massimo Casacchia ◽  
Rita Formisano ◽  
Massimo Feliciani ◽  
Giuliana Cusimano ◽  
...  

The results of a double-blind cross-over clinical trial involving 27 patients with classical or common migraine are described to compare the prophylactic effect of the calcium entry-blocker flunarizine with that of pizotifen. Duration of the treatment was two months, with an evening single-dose administration of both drugs. For most parameters, there was no definite difference between flunarizine and pizotifen in migraine prophylaxis. It has been demonstrated previously that pizotifen is an effective drug in migraine prophylaxis, and these results suggest that flunarizine is effective, too. Weight gain as a side effect was less frequent and less severe with flunarizine than with pizotifen; other side effects showed the same incidence with both drugs.

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Safa Najafi ◽  
Maryam Ansari ◽  
Vahid Kaveh ◽  
Shahpar Haghighat

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of a single dose (Pegfilgrastim or PDL) or repeated six daily injections (Filgrastim or PDG) during chemotherapy courses in breast cancer patients in a non-inferiority clinical trial. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 80 patients were recruited and allocated randomly to two equal arms. In one group, a single subcutaneous dose of PDL was injected the day after receiving the chemotherapy regimen in each cycle. The second arm received a subcutaneous injection of PDG for six consecutive days in each cycle of treatment. The side effects of GCF treatment and its effect on blood parameters were compared in each cycle and during eight cycles of chemotherapy. Results Hematologic parameters showed no significant differences in any of the treatment courses between the two study groups. The comparison of WBC (p = 0.527), Hgb (p = 0.075), Platelet (p = 0.819), Neutrophil (p = 0.575), Lymphocyte (p = 705) and ANC (p = 0.675) changes during the eight courses of treatment also revealed no statistically significant difference between the two study groups. Side effects including headache, injection site reaction and muscle pain had a lower frequency in patients receiving PDL drugs. Conclusion It seems that PDL is non-inferior in efficacy and also less toxic than PDG. Since PDL can be administered in a single dose and is also less costly, it can be regarded as a cost-effective drug for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Trial registration IRCT20190504043465N1, May 2019.


BMC Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. R. Bandara ◽  
S. Samita ◽  
A. M. Kiridana ◽  
H. M. M. T. B. Herath

Abstract Background Migraine is a primary headache disorder and is the most common disabling primary headache disorder that occurs in children and adolescents. A recent study showed that paranasal air suction can provide relief to migraine headache. However, in order to get the maximum benefit out of it, an easy to use effective air sucker should be available. Aiming to fulfil the above requirement, a randomized, double blind control clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of a recently developed low–pressure portable air sucker. Methods Eighty-six Sri Lankan school children of age 16–19 years with migraine were enrolled for the study. They were randomly allocated into two groups, and one group was subjected to six intermittent ten-second paranasal air suctions using the portable air sucker for 120 s. The other group was subjected to placebo air suction (no paranasal air suction). The effect of suction using portable air sucker was the primary objective but side of headache, type of headache, and gender were also studied as source variables. The primary response studied was severity of headache. In addition, left and right supraorbital tenderness, photophobia, phonophobia, numbness over the face and scalp, nausea and generalized tiredness/weakness of the body were studied. The measurements on all those variables were made before and after suction, and the statistical analysis was performed based on before and after differences. As a follow–up, patients were monitored for 24-h period. Results There was a significant reduction in the severity of headache pain (OR = 25.98, P < 0.0001), which was the primary outcome variable, and other migraine symptoms studied, tenderness (left) (OR = 289.69, P < 0.0001), tenderness (right) (OR > 267.17, P < 0.0001), photophobia (OR = 2115.6, P < 0.0001), phonophobia (OR > 12.62, P < 0.0001) nausea (OR > 515.59, P < 0.0001) and weakness (OR = 549.06, P < 0.0001) except for numbness (OR = 0.747, P = 0.67) in the treatment group compared to the control group 2 min after the suction. These symptoms did not recur within 24-h period and there were no significant side effects recorded during the 24-h observation period. Conclusion This pilot study showed that low–pressure portable air sucker is effective in paranasal air suction, and suction for 120 s using the sucker can provide an immediate relief which can last for more than 24-h period without any side effects. Trail registration Clinical Trial Government Identification Number – 1548/2016. Ethical Clearance Granted Institute – Medical Research Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka (No 38/2016). Sri Lanka Clinical Trial Registration No: SLCTR/2017/018. Date of registration = 29/ 06/2017. Approval Granting Organization to use the device in the clinical trial– National Medicines Regulatory Authority Sri Lanka (16 Jan 2018), The device won award at Geneva international inventers exhibition in 2016 and President award in 2018 in Sri Lanka. It is a patented device in Sri Lanka and patent number was SLKP/1/18295. All methods were carried out in accordance with CONSORT 2010 guidelines.


Trials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica Swystun ◽  
Francis H. Y. Green ◽  
John H. Dennis ◽  
Emmanouil Rampakakis ◽  
Gurkeet Lalli ◽  
...  

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
D M Lomas ◽  
J Gay ◽  
R N Midha ◽  
D L Postlethwaite

Three hundred and twelve patients suffering from painful conditions were admitted to a multicentre, double-blind controlled trial, conducted in general practice in which five analgesics—floctafenine (Idarac), paracetamol, aspirin, dihydrocodeine and pentazocine—were compared. Overall ratings of analgesic effect placed floctafenine first in rank order. Floctafenine was statistically significantly superior in effect to pentazocine but not to the other three agents as far as doctor ratings were concerned; and superior to both pentazocine and dihydrocodeine in the opinion of patients. Fewer patients experienced side-effects on floctafenine than on the other four analgesics and this difference between floctafenine and pentazocine, and floctafenine and dihydrocodeine was statistically significant.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S281-S281
Author(s):  
V. Farnia ◽  
F. Tatari ◽  
M. Alikhani ◽  
J. Shakeri ◽  
M. Taghizadeh ◽  
...  

IntroductionPatients with severe opioid dependency might be treated with methadone, a pure μ-opioid-receptor, with promising results. Though, as for opioids, side effects are high, and among those, sexual dysfunction is among the most disturbing side effects.AimsInvestigating the influence of Rosa Damascena oil to improve sexual dysfunction among male methadone users.MethodsA total of 60 male patients (mean age: 30 years) with diagnosed opioid dependence and currently under treatment of methadone were randomly assigned either to the verum (Rosa Damascenca oil drops) or placebo condition. At baseline, and four and eight weeks later, patients completed self-rating questionnaires covering sexual dysfunction and happiness.ResultsOver time sexual dysfunction decreased and happiness increased in the verum, but not in the placebo condition.ConclusionsResults from this double blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled clinical trial showed that Rosa Damascena oil improved sexual dysfunction and happiness among male opioid addicts while under substitution treatment with methadone.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.


1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Jepson ◽  
G Beaumont

A daily dose of 200 mg of opipramol (Insidon, Geigy) and 30 mg of chlordiazepoxide (Librium, Roche) were compared in a clinical trial in general practice. The trial was double blind and a stratified randomisation technique was employed. Twenty four patients received opipramol and twenty six chlordiazepoxide for four weeks. A total anxiety score and separate ‘psychic’ anxiety and ‘somatic’ anxiety scores were recorded, using a rating scale initially and after two and four weeks treatment. No overall difference in efficacy was found between the two drugs—opipramol producing a 76% improvement and chlordiazepoxide 64% by the end of the study. There was no difference in the relief of psychic anxiety. Although opipramol appeared to give more relief of somatic anxiety, the difference was not statistically significant. Again although opipramol relieved more individual symptoms than chlordiazepoxide, none of the differences were significant. 70% of patients on opipramol and 74% of those on chlordiazepoxide were classified ‘better’ globally by both doctor and patient by the end of the trial. The total number of side effects recorded was similar on both drugs although drowsiness occurred twice as frequently on chlordiazepoxide as it did on opipramol.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document