A Comparative Trial of Desipramine and Nortriptyline in Depression

1968 ◽  
Vol 114 (509) ◽  
pp. 469-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Stewart ◽  
P. H. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Endogenous Depression ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Significant Difference

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.

Dibenzepin and Amitriptyline in the Treatment of Depression

1971 ◽  
Vol 118 (546) ◽  
pp. 523-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Y. Ekdawi
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Antidepressant Drug ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Tricyclic Antidepressant ◽  
Pharmacological Properties ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Depressed Patients ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Significant Difference

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.

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
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Chronic Bronchitis ◽  
Therapeutic Efficacy ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Acute Exacerbations ◽  
Minocycline Hydrochloride ◽  
Long Acting

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.

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.

scholarly journals Comparing the efficacy and side-effects of PDLASTA® (Pegfilgrastim) with PDGRASTIM® (Filgrastim) in breast cancer patients: a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Safa Najafi ◽  
Maryam Ansari ◽  
Vahid Kaveh ◽  
Shahpar Haghighat
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Single Dose ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Injection Site Reaction ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Significant Difference

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.

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 Controlled Comparative Trial of a New Antidepressant, Ciclazindol

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidney Levine
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Comparative Trial ◽  
Poor Response ◽  
Endogenous Depression ◽  
Depressive Illness ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Severity Of Depression ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Rate Of Response

The author describes a controlled, double-blind, comparative trial of a new tetracyclic compound, ciclazindol (WY 23409), against amitriptyline in the treatment of thirty-five patients admitted to hospital with depressive illness. Each patient was randomly allocated to three weeks treatment with either 50 mg b.d. ciclazindol or 50 mg b.d. amitriptyline. In the event of a poor response the dose level was raised to 75 mg b.d. Separation of cases of endogenous depression and severity of depression were assessed by the Levine-Pilowsky Depression Questionnaire, a self-rating technique. Severity of depression was also assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale. No significant difference was noted between the drugs in either the degree or the rate of response nor when the endogenous cases alone were studied. The interesting observation was made that only one-third of ciclazindol patients gained weight compared to almost three-quarters of the amitriptyline group and the mean weight gain of the latter was over double that of the ciclazindol group. The author concludes that ciclazindol offers promise and merits further study using higher dosage levels once its full safety trials have been completed.

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.

scholarly journals Effect of Halita mouthwash on oral halitosis treatment: A randomized triple-blind clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Zahra Jamali ◽  
Mahdieh Alipour ◽  
Syamand Ebrahimi ◽  
Marzie Aghazadeh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Oral Cavity ◽  
Oral Malodor ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The World ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Organoleptic Score

Background. Halitosis (oral malodor) is a common problem all over the world and its prevalence has been estimated at 23‒ 50%. Halitosis originates from oral cavity in 85% of patients. This clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the Halita mouthwash in oral halitosis treatment. Methods. Fifty subjects with an organoleptic score of >2 at baseline participated in this triple-blinded clinical trial. Subjects were divided into 2 groups. Group I subjects (N=25) were instructed to rinse with 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash twice a day for 1 week. Group II subjects (N=25) used Halita mouthwash with the same instruction. Halitosis was evaluated at baseline and one week after using the mouthwashes by organoleptic method. Data were analyzed with chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests (P<0.05). Results. In the Halita group subjects exhibited 2.04±0.65 reduction in OLS. OLS reduction in the chlorhexidine group was 1.95±0.74. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion. Based on the results, Halita mouthwash has the same effect on oral halitosis as routine 0.2% CHX mouthwash. Halita mouthwash has fewer side effects because of lower concentration of chlorhexidine. Therefore 0.2% CHX mouthwash could be replaced by Halita mouthwash for the treatment of halitosis.

Comparing the Effects of Epley Maneuver and Cinnarizine on Benign Positional Paroxysmal Vertigo: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 866
Author(s):  
Masoumeh Saeedi ◽  
Mohammad Hossein Khosravi ◽  
Mohammad Ehsan Bayatpoor
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Treatment Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Epley Maneuver ◽  
Benign Positional Paroxysmal Vertigo ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Repositioning Maneuver

Background: The fastest and safest treatment method of BPPV is repositioning maneuvers. In Iran, these methods are not widely used, and many physicians use medical therapy, despite their side effects, for management of BPPV. Materials and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial patients with BPPV were randomly allocated to Epley repositioning maneuver or Cinnarizine (25mg every 8 hours) for two weeks. The patients were evaluated for symptoms using visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system before the intervention, first and second weeks after intervention. In the second and third visitd, the results of the hallpike test were recorded for both groups. Results: 43 patients with a mean age of 46.88±11.08 years in two Epley and Cinnarizine group underwent analysis. The mean VAS score for improvement of symptoms after the intervention was 1.66±1.06 in Epley and 1.50±0.91 in Cinnarizine group (P=0.57). Conclusion: we found that there is no significant difference between Epley maneuver and Cinnarizine for treatment and controlling symptoms of BPPV. [GMJ.2019;Inpress:e866]

Report on a Double-Blind Comparison of Two Different Regimens of Dothiepin (Prothiaden)

1983 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Boening
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Therapeutic Effect ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Endogenous Depression ◽  
Clinical Impression ◽  
Night Time ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Single Night ◽  
Node Group

Thirty patients diagnosed as suffering from endogenous depression were entered into a 3-week double-blind trial comparing three times a day dosage of dothiepin with a single night-time dosage in a dosage range of 75 mg to 225 mg per day. The trial was conducted on in-patients and assessments were made pretrial and after 1 and 3 weeks. The patients were assessed by clinician-rated scales for psychomotor and psychic symptoms and by Zung's self-rating scale. Fifteen patients received dothiepin three times a day (day-time group) and fifteen received it as a single night-time dose (node group). There were two withdrawals in the day-time group and three in the node group. All withdrawals were due to lack of therapeutic effect. Over the 3-week trial 67% of the day-time group and 47% of the node group showed a clinical improvement. It was found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two methods of treatment. In the day-time group seven patients and in the night-time group nine patients suffered from side-effects. No particular pattern of side-effects emerged. There were no drug-related changes in the laboratory results. It was concluded that the therapeutic effect of both dosage regimes should be regarded as equivalent. Advantages, due to the specific action of dothiepin, compared with classical antidepressants for reference, could, however, not be presumed by the clinical impression.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document