A Comparative Trial of Opipramol and Chlordiazepoxide in the Treatment of Anxiety

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Jepson ◽  
G Beaumont
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Anxiety Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Somatic Anxiety ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
The Difference

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.

A Comparative Clinical Trial of Mianserin (Norval®) and Amitriptyline in the Treatment of Depression in General Practice

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Eric Murphy ◽  
K M Bridgman
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Comparative Clinical Trial ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

A double-blind controlled comparative trial of mianserin (Norval®) and amitriptyline was conducted in general practice. Fifty-one patients were treated with amitriptyline and fifty-five with mianserin. The dosage for the first week was 25 mg t.d.s. for amitriptyline and 10 mg t.d.s. for mianserin, increasing to 50 mg t.d.s. and 20 mg t.d.s. respectively for the subsequent three weeks. Both drugs proved equally effective in relieving the symptoms of primary depression but mianserin showed a reduced incidence of side-effects which was statistically significant.

Diclofenac (Voltaren®) for the Treatment of Osteo-Arthrosis: A Double-Blind Comparison with Naproxen

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Siraux
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Blind Comparison

A double-blind, between-patient, comparative trial of diclofenac (Voltaren) and naproxen was carried out in 30 patients suffering from osteo-arthrosis of the hip or the knee. The drugs were given twice daily, morning and evening, during a period of two weeks. The daily dose was 100 mg for Voltaren and 500 mg for naproxen. The results indicate that Voltaren brought relief of pain and stiffness in a greater number of patients than did naproxen. The same finding was made regarding the influence on the range of joint movements, the difference reaching statistical significance. Voltaren appeared also to be better tolerated since the number of patients reporting side-effects was smaller and the complaints of less severity.

A Double-Blind Comparative Clinical Trial of Floctafenine and Four Other Analgesics Conducted in General Practice

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
D M Lomas ◽  
J Gay ◽  
R N Midha ◽  
D L Postlethwaite
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Rank Order ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
The Other ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Comparative Clinical Trial

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.

A Comparative Clinical Trial of Org GB 94 and Imipramine in the Treatment of Depression in General Practice

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
J E Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Therapeutic Effect ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Comparative Clinical Trial ◽  
Two Agents ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

A double-blind controlled comparative clinical trial of Org GB 94 and imipramine was conducted in general practice. Fifty-five patients were treated with Org GB 94 (60 mg daily) and fifty-four with imipramine (150 mg daily). In the doses employed both agents were equally effective in relieving depression over a four week treatment period. Tolerance of the two agents was similar. Although no statistically significant differences emerged, with regard to both therapeutic effect and some side-effects a trend in favour of Org GB 94 was apparent.

A Double-Blind Study of Trazodone and Mianserin in the Treatment of Depression in General Practice

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
H H Richards ◽  
R N Midha ◽  
S Miller
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Therapeutic Effect ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Global Improvement ◽  
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ◽  
Self Rating ◽  
Visual Analogue Scales ◽  
Analogue Scales

The antidepressant and anxiolytic efficacy of trazodone (100–200 mg daily), mianserin (60–120 mg daily) and diazepam (15–30 mg daily) was evaluated in ninety-three patients suffering from mild to moderate depression, with or without anxiety, over 6 weeks in a double-blind non-crossover general practice study. Efficacy was evaluated using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Patient Self-Rating Visual Analogue scales, physician global assessments and the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. All three treatments significantly reduced symptoms of depression, as measured on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the physician's assessment of Global Improvement. Trazodone was significantly superior to both mianserin and diazepam. As assessed using Visual Analogue Scales, trazodone was also shown to be significantly superior to diazepam in improving the patient's ability to concentrate and in reducing daytime tiredness. Although evidence of efficacy was found, there were no differences in activity between the treatment groups using the physician's assessment of Current Severity or on assessment of Therapeutic Effect. The treatments all caused a reduction in anxiety as assessed by the Zung Self-Rating Scale. The overall incidence of side-effects was similar between groups. For those side-effects considered to be significantly interfering with the patient's function, but not outweighing the therapeutic effect, a reduction of dosage was effective. Several patients complaining of drowsiness or lethargy as an unacceptable daytime side-effect were switched successfully from twice daily to night-time dosing. Significantly more patients with side-effects (outweighing therapeutic effect or in the presence of no improvement) were withdrawn from the mianserin group than from the trazodone or diazepam groups. Overall, the therapeutic efficacy in relation to the incidence of clinically significant side-effects, favoured trazodone for the treatment of general practice patients suffering from depression, with or without anxiety.

Double-Blind Evaluation of Domperidone in Acute Vomiting and Dyspeptic Disorders

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Agorastos ◽  
N P Zissis ◽  
I Kaprinis ◽  
G Goulis
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Double Blind Trial ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Trial ◽  
Therapeutic Results ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Symptom Rating

The anti-emetic effects of domperidone were evaluated under double-blind conditions in twenty-four patients with acute vomiting randomly assigned to treatment either with 10 mg i.m. domperidone (six females, five males) or with placebo (seven females, six males). The therapeutic results were better with domperidone and the differences from placebo were statistically significant (p < 0.02). In a second randomized, crossover, double-blind trial, domperidone (10 mg t.i.d.) evaluated according to a nine-symptom rating scale, in eighteen dyspeptic patients, proved significantly more effective than placebo. The duration of treatment was 6 weeks and the drugs were crossed-over after 3 weeks. The difference between the two groups was most marked during the second phase of the trial. No side-effects were reported.

A Comparative Trial of Minocin (Minocycline Hydrochloride) and Ampicillin in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 304-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
G R F Burrow ◽  
A S Fox ◽  
R J E Daniel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Chronic Bronchitis ◽  
Therapeutic Efficacy ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acute Exacerbations ◽  
Minocycline Hydrochloride ◽  
Long Acting

One hundred and fifteen patients suffering from acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis took part in a double-blind, multicentre, clinical trial designed to compare the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of ampicillin and minocycline hydrochloride, a new, long-acting, semi-synthetic tetracycline. Both antibiotics were equally successful in treatment, there being no statistically significant difference between the two in any of the parameters studied. Side-effects were few and far between. Only one patient out of the 57 who took minocycline, complained of dizziness.

A Comparative Trial of a New Antidepressant, Fluoxetine

1987 ◽  
Vol 150 (5) ◽  
pp. 653-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Levine ◽  
R. Deo ◽  
K. Mahadevan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Single Daily Dose ◽  
Weight Increase ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Daily Dose

This clinical trial of a new antidepressant, fluoxetine, shows it to be as effective as a standard tricyclic drug, imipramine. It is effective as a single daily dose and is free of any significant side-effects. It is less sedative and appears to cause fewer problems of weight increase. The three scales used to assess efficacy showed a very positive correlation.

A Controlled Comparative Trial of a Combination of Opipramol and Clomipramine and a Higher Dose of Clomipramine Alone

1975 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-31
Author(s):  
J E Murphy ◽  
J F Donald ◽  
G Beaumont
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Combination Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Dose Regime ◽  
Symptom Rating ◽  
Depressive States

Sixty patients suffering from mixed anxiety depressive states were admitted to a comparative controlled clinical trial of a free combination of opipramol 50 mg and clomipramine 10 mg and clomipramine 25 mg. A double-dummy technique was used to ensure blindness and both regimes were administered three times daily. A stratified randomization technique was employed but this did not work effectively as far as severity was concerned producing some imbalance in the groups. Thirty-one patients received the combination therapy and 29 clomipramine alone. Twenty-eight patients on the combination regime and 24 on clomipramine alone completed the study. Amongst the completers the total score, on a 17 symptom rating scale, fell from 19·6 to 6·6 in the combination group and from 23·6 to 9·3 in the clomipramine alone group after 4 weeks treatment. Significantly more side-effects, especially dry mouth, were seen in the clomipramine alone group. After 2 weeks the opipramol/clomipramine regime was significantly more effective in the relief of anxiety whereas the clomipramine higher dose regime brought about a significantly greater improvement in the symptom depressed mood.

A Double-Blind Comparison of Terfenadine and Mequitazine in the Symptomatic Treatment of Acute Pollinosis

1986 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 124-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Hugonot ◽  
R Hugonot ◽  
D Beaumont ◽  
Cahen ◽  
Colomby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Diary Card ◽  
Onset Of Action ◽  
Blurred Vision ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference

This study was a double-blind, parallel group comparison of terfenadine (TRF) 60 mg b.i.d. and mequitazine (MQZ) 5 mg b.i.d. for 7 days in the symptomatic treatment of acute pollinosis. The trial took place in the same geographic area and during the same pollen season (May-July 85), to ensure homogeneity of the study population. The fourteen investigators participating in this multicentre trial recruited 141 patients (69 TRF; 72 MQZ) suffering from well-documented pollinosis, mainly hay fever and sometimes allergy to tree pollens. Symptoms (nasal itching, sneezing, rhinorrhoea, obstruction, conjunctivitis) and possible somnolence were rated daily using a 4-point rating-scale of 0 to 3 by the patient on a diary card. Assessment of over-all efficacy and tolerability – focusing on atropinic side-effects – was made at the end of the seven-days treatment period by the physician, after reviewing the diary card and questioning the patient. The means score profile of each symptom for the study period was similar with the two treatments. Both had a fast onset of action with the regression of the total symptoms' score being already significant at day 1. Over-all assessment of efficacy at day 7 showed no significant difference between the two treatments. The daily somnolence scores however showed a clear and significant difference between the two drugs: the frequency of moderate to marked somnolence from day 2 to 7 was around 15% with MQZ and around 5% on days 2 to 5 and 0% on days 6 and 7 with TRF, the difference being significant on days 2, 5, 6 and 7. The incidence of blurred vision was 7% with MQZ requiring cessation of therapy in one patient, compared with 0% with TRF (p < 0-06). Side-effects other than somnolence and atropinic effects were reported in two TRF and six MQZ patients. In conclusion terfenadine and mequitazine displayed the same efficacy for symptoms of pollinosis, but terfenadinie was better tolerated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document