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

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.

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.


1971 ◽  
Vol 118 (546) ◽  
pp. 523-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Y. Ekdawi

Dibenzepin hydrochloride is a new tricyclic antidepressant drug with pharmacological properties midway between those of imipramine and amitriptyline. In a double-blind comparative trial, J. M. Fielding (Med. J. Australia, 1969, 1, 614) found no significant difference in the speed of the effect of the two drugs in depressed patients. He reported that side-effects rated subjectively by patients were maximal before starting on the drugs and tended to decrease with time. The following trial was accordingly staged.


1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Eric Murphy ◽  
K M Bridgman

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.


Cephalalgia ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
JD Carroll ◽  
M Reidy ◽  
PA Savundra ◽  
N Cleave ◽  
J McAinsh

A randomized double-blind, cross-over study using treatment periods of 12 weeks with a 2-week washout, comparing two long-acting formulations of propranolol (`Inderal’*(1) LA 160 mg daily and Half-‘Inderal’ LA 80 mg daily) was performed after a placebo run-in of 4 weeks on 51 patients. The study indicated that both long-acting formulations were significantly better than placebo in reducing the frequency of migraine attacks ( p < 0.01). After 12 weeks there was a significantly lower ( p = 0.03) frequency of migraine attacks in patients on the higher dose formulation than in those on the lower dose formulation. There was no significant difference in the frequency of side effects produced by the two formulations.


1968 ◽  
Vol 114 (509) ◽  
pp. 469-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Stewart ◽  
P. H. Mitchell

Seven drugs of the imino-dibenzyl group are now generally available in Great Britain (imipramine, amitriptyline, desipramine, nortriptyline, protriptyline, trimipramine and opipramol). All are similar in their actions and side-effects. Imipramine, the first to appear, has been shown to be more effective than placebo in the treatment of depression, though with much better results in men than in women (M.R.C. Clinical Trial, 1965). Desipramine, a metabolite of impramine, was introduced with the claim that its action was quicker than that of imipramine, though this has never been clearly demonstrated. Trials of desipramine against imipramine (Waldron and Bates, 1965; Rose and Westhead, 1964) showed no significant difference between these drugs. Comparison of amitriptyline and imipramine (Burt, Gordon, Holt and Hordern, 1962), showed amitriptyline to be at least as effective as imipramine and significantly superior in the treatment of endogenous depression. Comparisons of nortriptyline and amitriptyline (Forrest, Affleck, Gibb and Priest, 1964; Rose, Leahy, Martin and Westhead, 1965) showed no significant difference between these drugs.


1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 435-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Capstick ◽  
Helena Pudney

A trial involving patients receiving fluphenazine decanoate was designed to compare the effects of orphenadrine hydrochloride (Disipal) and its major metabolite, tofenacin hydrochloride (Elamol) on the Parkinsonian side-effects and depression occurring during fluphenazine decanoate therapy. The trial was a double-blind one, with crossover. It was found that both drugs exerted an adequate control on the Parkinsonian side-effects, but there was no significant difference between their effects. Ophenadrine, however, was shown to be significantly superior (p > 0·05) in the control of the depressive side-effects.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Younes Najafian ◽  
Zahra M. Khorasani ◽  
Mona N. Najafi ◽  
Shokouh S. Hamedi ◽  
Marjan Mahjour ◽  
...  

Background:Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most common complications of diabetic patients. Mostly, non-healing DFU leads to infection, gangrene, amputation and even death. High costs and poor healing of the wounds need a new treatment such as alternative medicine. So, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Aloe vera/ Plantago major gel (Plantavera gel) in healing of DFUMethods:Forty patients with DFU enrolled in a double-blind randomized clinical trial. The patients who were randomly assigned into the intervention group (n = 20), received topical Plantavera gel in addition to the routine cares, whereas the patients in the control group (n = 20), received topical Placebo gel in addition to the routine cares. Intervention was done twice a day for 4 weeks in the both groups. Photography and an evaluation of DFU healing were conducted by a checklist and then were scored at baseline and at the end of each week. The collected data was analyzed by SPSS software.Results:At the end of the study, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of total ulcer score (P<0.001) and Plantavera gel significantly reduced the ulcer surface comparing with the control group (P=0.039). However, there was not a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.263) in terms of the ulcer depth. During this study, no side effect was observed for Plantavera gel in the intervention group.Conclusion:Topical Plantavera gel seems to be an effective, cheap and safe treatment. Of course, further studies are required to confirm the properties of the wound healing of this gel.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document