Nadolol and Propranolol in the Treatment of Hypertension: A Double-Blind Comparison

1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
M M El Mehairy ◽  
MB Cairo ◽  
A Shaker ◽  
M Ramadan ◽  
S Hamza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Depressant Action ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Treatment Of Hypertension ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Supine Systolic Blood Pressure

Nadolol and propranolol were compared in seventy-five hypertensive patients in a double-blind randomized study conducted at Ain-Shams Hospital. After an initial wash-out period of 5 weeks, including 3 weeks of placebo administration, forty-five patients were given nadolol once daily and thirty patients received propranolol four times per day for 12 weeks, followed by a tapering-off period of 2 weeks. Both beta-blocking agents were effective in controlling hypertension with final daily doses ranging from 80 to 320 mg. Of statistical significance, however, were the better responses of supine systolic blood pressure elicited by nadolol. The only adverse reactions that occurred in this series were slight weight gains in two patients treated with nadolol and moderate dizziness in one patient treated with propranolol. Nadolol was proved to be a safe antihypertensive drug, at least comparable to propranolol in efficacy, with the advantages of a once-daily dose and a lack of direct depressant action on the heart.

Comparison of Clinical Effects of Propranolol (Inderal ®) with Once Daily Slow-Release Oxprenolol (Slow Trasicor®) in Angina Pectoris

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
P A Majid ◽  
P J de Feijter ◽  
R Wardeh ◽  
E E van der Wall ◽  
J P Roos
Keyword(s):  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Slow Release ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Daily Dose ◽  
Exercise Induced ◽  
Single Dose Treatment ◽  
Appreciable Reduction

In a double-blind, crossover, randomized study, the therapeutic effectiveness of a single daily dose of slow-release oxprenolol (160 mg/day) was compared with a conventional dosage schedule of propranolol (40 mg three times daily) in eighteen patients with uncomplicated, stable exercise-induced angina pectoris. Compared to control values both drugs produced equipotent reduction in the frequency and severity of anginal attacks accompanied by a significant increase in exercise tolerance, a significant suppression of exercising heart rate and an appreciable reduction in the electrocardiographic evidence of myocardial ischaemia when tested on a treadmill. The possible advantages offered by a single dose treatment with slow-release oxprenolol are discussed.

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 comparison of once-daily metoprolol controlled-release and atenolol in the treatment of Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming-Fong Chen ◽  
Chi-Yu Yang ◽  
Wen-Jone Chen ◽  
Chii-Ming Lee ◽  
Chau-Chung Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Release ◽  
Moderate Hypertension ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Blind Comparison

Sulphadiazine/Trimethoprim Once Daily in Maxillary Sinusitis: A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison with Sulphamethoxazole/Trimethoprim B.I.D.

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 478-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Federspil ◽  
Peter Bamberg
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Sinusitis ◽  
Favourable Result ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Cure Rates

In a randomized double-blind study fifty-four patients suffering from acute maxillary sinusitis were treated for 10 days with daily doses of sulphadiazine/trimethopim (1 g) and sulphamethoxazole/trimethoprim (1.92 g), respectively. The efficacy was evaluated clinically at two follow-up visits. X-ray investigations were performed at admission and after the therapy. Of thirty-nine patients finally evaluated, thirty-seven showed a favourable result. After 6–8 days of therapy there was significant difference in cure rates in favour of sulphadiazine/trimethoprim (p < 0.05) while the outcome as evaluated after treatment was similar for both drugs.

A Parallel-Group Comparison of Astemizole and Loratadine for the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 175-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Al-Muhaimeed
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Perennial Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Runny Nose ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
The Mean ◽  
To Receive

The efficacy and safety of the two antihistamines, astemizole and loratadine, were compared in a double-blind study of 84 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients were randomized to receive orally either astemizole 10 mg once daily ( n = 40) or loratadine 10 mg once daily ( n = 44) for 1 week. No other antirhinitis medication was allowed during the study. By day 7 the mean daily symptom scores, recorded on diary cards, were lower in patients receiving astemizole than in those receiving loratadine for runny nose, itchy nose and sneezing, although not for blocked nose, and treatment differences only reached statistical significance for runny nose. After 7 days, 53.75% of patients on astemizole and 38.6% on loratadine were free of symptoms, and 87% of patients on astemizole described the treatment as good or excellent compared with 62% on loratadine. The present results suggest that astemizole may be more effective than loratadine in controlling symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Efficacy of Celecoxib in Treating Symptoms of Viral Pharyngitis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study of Celecoxib versus Diclofenac

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
LLM Weckx ◽  
JE Ruiz ◽  
J Duperly ◽  
GA Martínez Mendizabal ◽  
MBG Rausis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Specific Inhibitor ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Daily Group ◽  
Throat Pain

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor celecoxib with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Adult patients from 27 study centers in Latin America were treated with oral doses of celecoxib 200 mg once daily or 200 mg twice daily, or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily for 5 days in a double-blind, randomized study. The primary efficacy assessment was ‘Throat Pain on Swallowing’ on day 3. In addition, secondary quality-of-life assessments were performed on days 3 and 5. All adverse events and treatment-emergent signs and symptoms were recorded. Data from 313 patients were evaluable for efficacy (105 celecoxib 200 mg once daily, 107 celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, 101 diclofenac 75 mg twice daily). The upper 95% confidence limits for the visual analog scale of ‘Throat Pain on Swallowing’ on day 3 for celecoxib 200 mg once daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily were 9.26 and 7.83, respectively. All secondary efficacy and quality-of-life measures were clinically similar for the three treatment groups, and no statistically significant differences were detected. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were similar for all groups, but numerically higher among patients taking diclofenac than celecoxib. More patients in the diclofenac group reported gastrointestinal complaints (7.3%) compared with those in the celecoxib groups (4.3% in the celecoxib 200 mg once-daily group and 3.4% in the celecoxib 200 mg twice-daily group). In conclusion, 5 days of treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as diclofenac 75 mg twice daily in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Celecoxib 200 mg once daily is also as effective as celecoxib 200 mg twice daily in this condition.

Double-Blind Comparison of Maternal Analgesia and Neonatal Neurobehaviour following Intravenous Butorphanol and Meperidine

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Hodgkinson ◽  
Robert W Huff ◽  
Robert H Hayashi ◽  
Farkhanda J Husain
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Foetal Heart Rate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cervical Dilation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Blind Comparison

Butorphanol (1 mg and 2 mg) and meperidine (40 mg and 80 mg), given intravenously, were evaluated for analgesic efficacy and safety in a double-blind randomized study employing 200 consenting pre-partum patients in moderate to severe pain during the late first stage of labour. Both drugs provided adequate relief of pain to the mothers. There was no significant difference in the rate of cervical dilation, the foetal heart rate, the Apgar score, pain relief or neonatal neurobehavioural scores between those receiving butorphanol and those receiving meperidine. Twenty-two mothers who received butorphanol and eleven who received meperidine nursed their infants with no adverse effects observed. Side-effects were generally infrequent in this study; however, more side-effects were reported by the patients and observed by the investigator in the meperidine-treated cases (13%) than in the cases treated with butorphanol (2%).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document