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 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.

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 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 Benorylate and Indomethacin in the Treatment of Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in General Practice

1974 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alastair Malcolm
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Comparative Clinical Trial

Benorylate was compared with indomethacin in a double-blind cross-over trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Twelve patients completed treatment. All measurements showed a trend towards benorylate giving greater improvement, although the differences were not statistically significant. Nine patients out of the twelve preferred benorylate.

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.

A Double-Blind Controlled Trial of ‘Vivalan’ (Viloxazine Hydrochloride) and Imipramine Hydrochloride in the Treatment of Depression in General Practice

1974 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
P F C Bayliss ◽  
A R Dewsbury ◽  
J F Donald ◽  
J W Harcup ◽  
M Mayer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Depressive Illness ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Study ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Imipramine Hydrochloride

One hundred and twenty-three patients with mild to moderate depressive illness were entered into a double-blind between-patient study of viloxazine hydrochloride (150 mg/day, expressed as base) and imipramine hydrochloride (75 mg/day, expressed as salt) by nine general practitioners. Sixty-two took viloxazine and sixty-one took imipramine. Both drugs produced a statistically highly significant improvement in both the depressive and anxiety symptoms over the period of the study, an effect being seen as early as the seventh day of treatment. Viloxazine produced fewer side-effects than imipramine, in particular significantly less drowsiness and dry mouth. The only side-effect seen with viloxazine was an upper gastro-intestinal disturbance with nausea and occasional vomiting, but this was transient. It is concluded that viloxazine hydrochloride is an effective anti-depressant in mild to moderate cases of depression in general practice and has the advantage of fewer side-effects than imipramine. The absence of sedation with viloxazine is of particular value in the treatment of ambulant patients.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of paranasal air suction on acute migraine using portable air sucker – a randomized, double blind study

BMC Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. R. Bandara ◽  
S. Samita ◽  
A. M. Kiridana ◽  
H. M. M. T. B. Herath
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Primary Headache ◽  
Headache Disorder ◽  
Low Pressure ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Primary Headache Disorder ◽  
Before And After

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document