Analgesic Efficacy of Dextropropoxyphene and Dextropropoxyphene-containing Combinations: a Review

1984 ◽  
Vol 3 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 191s-220S ◽  
Author(s):  
W.T. Beaver

Twenty years ago, as part of a review of the clinical pharmacology of mild analgesics (Beaver, 1965, 1966), I evaluated reports of those analgesic trials of dextropropoxyphene that appeared to satisfy the minimum methodologic requirements for a controlled clinical trial of analgesic efficacy. On reviewing reports of studies that have been published since then, I find little need to modify my evaluation of the efficacy of dextropropoxyphene that appeared in 1966, at least in respect to the effect of single oral doses: In summary, dextropropoxyphene (hydrochloride) is a mild oral analgesic which has proven superior to placebo in doses of 65 mg or more but which is of questionable efficacy in doses lower than 65 mg. The drug is definitely less potent than codeine: the best available estimates of the relative potency of the two drugs indicating that dextropropoxyphene is approximately 1/2-2/3 as potent. Likewise, dextropropoxyphene in 32-65 mg doses is certainly no more, and possibly less, effective than the usually used doses of aspirin or A.P.C. (aspirin/phenacetin/caffeine). In the interim, the efficacy of dextropropoxyphene has been the subject of a number of other critical reviews (Miller et al., 1970; Miller, 1977), commentaries (Kiplinger & Nickander, 1971; Lasagna, 1976), and even congressional hearings (Beaver, 1979; Moertel, 1979). More importantly, new controlled clinical trials involving dextropropoxyphene hydrochloride or napsylate have been reported, and some of these use more sophisticated design and analysis than those available in 1966. I will therefore discuss the results of those newer studies of apparently suitable scientific design that meet at least the minimum criteria for a valid clinical assay of analgesic activity (Beaver, 1965; Houde et al., 1965,1966; Wallenstein & Houde, 1975; Beaver, 1983), and I will comment on only a few of the studies included in my previous review (Beaver, 1966).

1979 ◽  
Vol 88 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome O. Klein

The controlled clinical trial is a relatively new phenomenon; the first large clinical trial on evaluation of streptomycin in therapy of pulmonary tuberculosis occurred in 1946. In such a study, two or more groups of patients with similar characteristics are chosen by random allocation to receive one or more therapies. The essential ethical dilemma is based on the risk-benefit ratio of the new therapy. Ethical factors that must be considered in the design of controlled clinical trials include provision for informed consent, nature of alternate therapy, confidentiality of data, source of funding and potential conflict of interest, remuneration of subjects, criteria for ending participation of the subject, criteria for concluding the trial, compensation of injured subjects, compliance with institutional, municipal, state and federal regulations and provisions for special groups such as the fetus and pregnant woman, infants and young children, institutional patients and prisoners. Federal guidelines for research in specific areas are now available through the reports of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. To date, commission reports include recommendations for research in fetuses and pregnant women and in children. Protection of the subject is best provided by the quality of the protocol, integrity of the investigator, valid informed consent, and review of the research program by an independent committee composed of scientists and consumers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e10-e10
Author(s):  
Arash Ardestani Zadeh ◽  
Davood Arab ◽  
Mohammadreza Moonesan ◽  
Majid Mirmohammadkhani ◽  
Pouya Morid

Introduction: Pain control is an essential care for patients with renal colic in emergency wards. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of intravenous (IV) paracetamol (PC) versus ketorolac (KET) for patients with renal colic. Patients and Methods: In a randomized controlled clinical trial, 110 patients with renal colic referred to the emergency department of Kosar hospital, Semnan between October 2015 and June 2016 were selected. Eighty-eight patients were divided into two groups (44 patients in each group) of PC (1 g/IV) and KET (30 mg/IV). One patient in each group was excluded during the study. Vital signs and pain severity (measured by visual analogue scale [VAS]) of all patients were recorded at admission time 0, 20, 40 and 60 minutes after treatment. Then, the results were compared in two groups. Results: The results showed that at the time of 0, 20, 40 and 60 minutes after the administration of the PC and KET drugs, no significant difference was seen in severity of pain based on VAS score between the two groups (P<0.05). Moreover, there were no significant differences in the vital signs of two groups (P<0.05). No adverse effects were reported in each group. Conclusion: In conclusion, the use of IV-PC and KET in patients with renal colic had similar pain relieving effects without any adverse effects.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 2981-2988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Victoria Olmedo-Gaya ◽  
Francisco Javier Manzano-Moreno ◽  
Jose Luis Muñoz-López ◽  
Manuel Francisco Vallecillo-Capilla ◽  
Candela Reyes-Botella

1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. Blum ◽  
T. C. Chalmers ◽  
E. Deutsch ◽  
J. Koch-Weser ◽  
A. Rosén ◽  
...  

During a consensus conference in Lugano, Switzerland, 175 statements on controlled clinical trials were drafted by 47 representatives from academia, governmental registration agencies and industry in nine countries. Their opinion on these statements was similar to that of 47 ‘matched pairs’ who did not attend the conference. Thus, the opinion of participants and non-participants appears to reflect the general opinion of those currently involved in designing, conducting and analysing controlled clinical trials. The Lugano statements give answers to the following questions: Is the controlled clinical trial in a crisis? What is the motivation to perform controlled clinical trials? Is it possible for a physician participating in a controlled clinical trial to act in the patient's best interest? Is it possible to obtain truly informed consent in a controlled clinical trial? When is it ethical to withhold active treatment in a controlled clinical trial? What are the controversial issues in the design of a good controlled clinical trial? Is there a double standard with respect to efficacy and adverse drug reactions in controlled clinical trials? What are the alternatives to controlled clinical trials and when should they be performed? How can sponsor bias be minimized? How should an ethics committee decide whether a controlled clinical trial is Should? ethical registration agencies become directly involved in the planning and conduct of controlled clinical trials? Do the declarations of Tokyo and Helsinki facilitate the conduct of ethically valid controlled clinical trials? Is it possible to create an international standard for the conduct and regulation of controlled clinical trials? Why do messages from controlled clinical trials filter into medicine so slowly? Is it possible to bridge the gap between controlled clinical trials and clinical reality? What are the costs of doing and not doing controlled clinical trials? When should drug companies decide to start a trial programme with a specific compound? Is there public hostility against controlled clinical trials? If so, how can it be reduced? The respondents almost unanimously felt that controlled clinical trials are a must; the public must be told that progress in medicine depends on controlled clinical trials, that patients often benefit from participating in them and that the alternative, practising in the face of constant uncertainty, is worse than the possible disadvantages related to the conduct of the trial.


1980 ◽  
Vol 29 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 99-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damaraju Raghavarao

In controlled clinical trials, the treatments are likely to be influenced by various prognostic factors, and while assigning treatments sequentially to the patients it is desirable to allot the treatments in such a way that the treatments are balanced over the main effects of prognostic factors and also on some or all interactions between the prognostic factors if the interactions are present. Efran (1971), Pocock and Simon (1975) and Freedman and White (1976) described some methods of balancing the treatments over the prognostic factors. In this paper, we shall describe a new approach in assigning the treatments using multivariate methods.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Pitchford ◽  
Patricia M. Driver ◽  
John C. Fuller ◽  
Wendell S. Akers ◽  
Naji N. Abumrad ◽  
...  

Abstract Background 2-Hydroxybenzylamine (2-HOBA) is a selective dicarbonyl electrophile scavenger being developed as a nutritional supplement to help protect against the development of conditions associated with dicarbonyl electrophile formation, such as the cognitive decline observed with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer’s disease. Methods This study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of repeated oral doses of 2-HOBA acetate (500 or 750 mg) administered to healthy volunteers every eight hours for two weeks. The effects of 2-HOBA on cyclooxygenase function and cerebrospinal fluid penetrance of 2-HOBA were also investigated. Results Repeated oral administration of 2-HOBA was found to be safe and well-tolerated up to 750 mg TID for 15 days. 2-HOBA was absorbed within 2 h of administration, had a half-life of 2.10–3.27 h, and an accumulation ratio of 1.38–1.52. 2-HOBA did not interfere with cyclooxygenase function and was found to be present in cerebrospinal fluid 90 min after dosing. Conclusions Repeated oral administration of 2-HOBA was found to be safe and well-tolerated. These results support continued development of 2-HOBA as a nutritional supplement. Trial registration Studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03555682 Registered 13 June 2018, NCT03554096 Registered 12 June 18).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document