Clinical Trial of Pirprofen in Arthrosis of the Knee Joint: A Double-Blind Comparison with Indomethacin

1983 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-221
Author(s):  
P Diverse ◽  
P Franchimont
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Knee Joint ◽  
Joint Stiffness ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Made In

Thirty-nine patients suffering front arthrosis of the knee were randomly allocated to either pirprofen 400 mg b.i.d. or indomethacin 50 mg b.i.d., the treatment being double-blind. Assessments for pain and joint stiffness were made after 2 and 4 weeks. Both treatments appeared to be equally effective and induced side-effects in a limited number of patients. Similar observations were made in those patients who continued the treatment over longer periods of time.

Clinical Trial with Lunerin® Mixture and Lunerin® Mite in Children with Secretory Otitis Media

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Saunte ◽  
Sten-Åke Johansson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Otitis Media ◽  
Active Drug ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Observation Time ◽  
Secretory Otitis Media ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Comparison

A double-blind comparison between a combined antihistaminic and vasoconstricting preparation (Lunerin® Mixture, Lunerin® Mite) and placebo was performed in children with secretory otitis media. It was shown that the children given the active drug reacted more favourably on every investigated parameter (hearing threshold, appearance and mobility of the ear drum, number of myringotomies and observation time) than the patients who were given placebo. The incidence of side-effects was low.

A Double-Blind Comparison of Ibuprofen, ASA-Codeine-Caffeine Compound and Placebo in the Treatment of Dental Surgery Pain

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
D J P Squires ◽  
E L Masson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Oral Dose ◽  
Codeine Phosphate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Dental Surgery ◽  
Caffeine Citrate ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Better Than

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in eighty-seven patients with mild, moderate or severe dental surgery pain to evaluate the analgesic activity of a single oral dose of the following compounds: (i) ibuprofen 400 mg, (ii) ACC-30 (a compound containing ASA 375 mg; codeine phosphate 30 mg; caffeine citrate 30 mg), (iii) placebo. Ibuprofen was significantly better than ACC-30 and placebo on almost all pain intensity, degree of relief and duration of analgesia parameters. ACC-30 was not significantly different from placebo on any analgesic measurement. No serious side-effects were reported with any of the study medications.

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.

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.

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.

Rosa Damascena Improved Sexual Dysfunction in Males Under Methadone Treatment – Results from a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S281-S281
Author(s):  
V. Farnia ◽  
F. Tatari ◽  
M. Alikhani ◽  
J. Shakeri ◽  
M. Taghizadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Sexual Dysfunction ◽  
Methadone Treatment ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Rosa Damascena ◽  
Placebo Condition ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Competing Interest

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.

A Double-Blind Comparison of Prazepam with Diazepam, Chlorazepate Dipotassium and Placebo in Anxious Out-Patients

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis F Fabre ◽  
David M McLendon ◽  
Arthur Mallette
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Drug Study ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Symptom Check List ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Lost To Follow Up ◽  
Age Range

This study compared prazepam with diazepam, chlorazepate dipotassium, and placebo in the treatment of anxious out-patients. Patients were screened for participation in the study to be sure they met the criteria for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had complicating physical or mental problems. All patients signed an informed consent. Seventy-three patients entered the study, thirteen did not complete at least two weeks of treatment and were not used in the data analysis. Of these thirteen, ten did not return and were lost to follow-up, two entered the hospital for reasons unrelated to the drug study, and one patient on diazepam was terminated because of increased anxiety. Sixty patients were used in the data analysis, thirty-six males and twenty-four females with an age range of 21–61 years. Side-effects were minimal. Drowsiness was reported by two people in the placebo group, one taking chlorazepate dipotassium, three on prazepam and one on diazepam. One diazepam patient reported nausea and vomiting. Scores on the Zung Self-Rating Scale for Anxiety showed all three drug groups to be superior to placebo. The Hopkins Symptom Check-list found prazepam and diazepam to be superior to placebo and chlorazepate. No differences among the groups were found in the Hamilton Anxiety Scale. Prazepam may offer advantages over the other available benzodiazepines since it may be more readily absorbed than chlorazepate and has less side-effects than diazepam.

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.

scholarly journals Epidural butorphanol for post operative analgesia in lower limb surgeries: A comparative study with epidural tramadol

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 26-32
Author(s):  
G P Deo ◽  
S K Shrestha ◽  
I N Shrestha
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Epidural Injection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Duration Of Action ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Group B

To compare the efficacy of epidural butorphanol and tramadol for post operative analgesia in lower limb surgeries. Randomized, controlled, double blind, prospective study conducted at Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Chitwan Medical College from September 1st 2015 to August 31st 2016. 60 patients of ASA Grade I and II of either sex, aged between 18-65 years willing for epidural analgesia for post operative analgesia were included in the study. They were divided into two groups: Group B- Butorphanol group and Group T- Tramadol group. Subjects of Group B received 2mg of Butorphanol and 0.25% Bupivacaine making a total volume of 10 ml and that of Group T received 100mg of Tramadol and 0.25% Bupivacaine also making a total volume of 10 ml. Analgesic efficacy was assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The onset and duration of analgesia along with side effects were also assessed. The quality of analgesia was studied using time to independent mobilization and overall patient satisfaction. Total number of patients was 60, of ASA Grade I and II, aged between 18-65 years. The mean age of patients in Group B was 42.6±11.7 years and 46.1±11.2 years in Group T. Time of onset of analgesia after epidural injection was 7.4±0.9 minutes in Group B and 12.7±1.5 minutes in Group T and the difference was found to be statistically significant. Duration of analgesia was 317.1±99.1 minutes and 438.8±136.6 minutes in Butorphanol and Tramadol groups respectively which was also statistically significant. Sedation was significantly higher in butorphanol group whereas nausea and vomiting was higher in tramadol group. Quality of analgesia in terms of patient satisfaction was better with epidural butorphanol. Both epidural tramadol and butorphanol were effective in relieving post operative pain however butorphanol had lesser side effects and greater patient satisfaction compared to tramadol but the duration of action was relatively short.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document