Tiapride versus glafenine: a double-blind comparative study in the management of acute rheumatic pain

Summary

A double-blind study was carried out in 42 patients suffering from acute rheumatic pain to compare the analgesic effectiveness and tolerance of tiapride with that of glafenine, a widely used analgesic in Europe. Patients were allocated at random to receive either 100?mg tiapride or 200?mg glafenine 3-times daily over a period of 14 days. Pain intensity was rated daily by the patients using a visual analogue scale and an overall assessment of response to treatment was made by both patients and physician at the end of the study. The results showed that. whilst both treatments resulted in a marked reduction in mean pain scores, pain disappeared completely in 16 (76%) of the 21 patients treated with tiapride compared with 9 (43%) of the 21 receiving glafenine. There was also a signqicant difference in favour of tiapride in the physician's overall assessment of response which was considered as excellent in 71% of the patients on tiapride compared with 31% receiving glafenine. Both treatments were well tolerated and few side-effects were reported. Drowsiness occurred in 6 patients on tiapride but this was only mild in 5 and moderate in the other patient.     

Comparative analgesic efficacy and tolerability of ketorolac tromethamine and glafenine in patients with post-operative pain

In a randomized, single-dose, double-blind, parallel comparative trial of analgesic efficacy, 96 adult patients received either 10 mg ketorolac tromethamine or 400 mg glafenine orally the morning after surgery if they requested pain relief medication. Each patient provided a baseline pain assessment and then received the assigned medication. Patients assessed pain intensity and pain relief and reported any adverse events in interviews held 30 minutes after drug administration and then hourly for 6 hours. The demographic characteristics, baseline pain intensity, and surgical categories of the 47 patients who received ketorolac tromethamine and the 49 who received glafenine were similar. Both drugs provided prompt, sustained pain relief throughout the 6-hour observation period, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the efficacy measures analyzed. The global assessment recorded by patients suggested a slight clinical advantage for ketorolac tromethamine (32.6% of 'excellent' responses) as compared to glafenine (12.5% 'excellent'). The differences in overall response were statistically significant (p = 0.017). Fourteen (30%) patients who received ketorolac tromethamine and 17 (35%) who received glafenine reported adverse experiences that began or seemed to worsen after administration of the study drugs. The most prominent were drowsiness and sleeping, both of which are common in post-surgical patients.     

Comparative analgesic efficacy and tolerability of ketorolac tromethamine and glafenine in patients with post-operative pain

Summary

In a randomized, single-dose, double-blind, parallel comparative trial of analgesic efficacy, 96 adult patients received either 10?mg ketorolac tromethamine or 400?mg glafenine orally the morning after surgery if they requested pain relief medication. Each patient provided a baseline pain assessment and then received the assigned medication. Patients assessed pain intensity and pain relief and reported any adverse events in interviews held 30 minutes after drug administration and then hourly for 6 hours. The demographic characteristics, baseline pain intensity, and surgical categories of the 47 patients who received ketorolac tromethamine and the 49 who received glafenine were similar. Both drugs provided prompt, sustained pain relief throughout the 6-hour observation period, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the efficacy measures analyzed. The global assessment recorded by patients suggested a slight clinical advantage for ketorolac tromethamine (32.6% of ‘excellent’ responses) as compared to glafenine (12.5% ‘excellent’). The differences in overall response were statistically significant (p = 0.017). Fourteen (30%) patients who received ketorolac tromethamine and 17 (35%) who received glafenine reported adverse experiences that began or seemed to worsen after administration of the study drugs. The most prominent were drowsiness and sleeping, both of which are common in post-surgical patients.     

An observer-blind comparison of diclofenac potassium, piroxicam and placebo in the treatment of ankle sprains

An observer-blind comparative clinical study was carried out in 108 patients presenting with ankle sprains at an Accident and Emergency department. The efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac potassium (50 mg 3-times daily) was compared with that of piroxicam (20 mg once daily), and placebo. Patients were allocated at random to receive one or other of the three treatments for 7 days. There were 36 patients in each group. The analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of treatment were assessed from volumetric measurements of inflammation at the injured ankle, tenderness, pain on passive movement, severity of the joint lesion, severity of pain at rest and on movement. The overall reductions in pain and inflammation were assessed at the end of the study. The results in patients treated with diclofenac potassium were significantly better than those in patients treated with piroxicam with respect to the improvement in pain on walking and the overall reduction in pain and inflammation, and both active treatments were superior to placebo. There was no significant difference between diclofenac potassium and piroxicam with respect to inflammation measured by volumetry, tenderness, and severity of pain at rest, but both active treatments were consistently superior to placebo. No serious adverse effects were reported. All the patients treated with diclofenac potassium and all those treated with piroxicam said that they would be willing to take the drug again; this was the case with only 27.8% of the placebo group. Diclofenac potassium can be considered an effective treatment for acute ankle sprains with a rapid onset of analgesic and anti-inflammatory action and good tolerability.     

Ibuprofen and Diclofenac Sodium in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Trial of Two Once-Daily Sustained-Release NSAID Formulations

Summary

An investigator-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily, sustained-release (s-r) ibuprofen and diclofenac sodium in patients (mean age 59.8 years) suffering from painful osteoarthritis affecting chiefly the knee and/or hip. Patients attending eight Swiss centres received either two s-r tablets of ibuprofen (daily dose 1600 mg; n = 30) or a single s-r diclofenac 100?mg tablet (n = 31) each evening for 21 days. Clinical assessments were performed prior to initiating therapy and after 7 and 21 days of treatment.

Both treatments were efficacious, but statistically significant differences in favour of s-r ibuprofen were observed for the principal measure of efficacy, the investigator's assessment of the overall change in clinical condition; by Day 21, 37% of ibuprofen-treated patients vs 10% of diclofenac-treated patients were ‘much improved’ (p = 0.04). Patients’ assessments of the efficacy of their treatment also favoured s-r ibuprofen at Day 7 for the relief of night pain (p = 0.048), at Day 21 for alleviation of day pain (p = 0.006) and for the ability to carry out normal activities (p = 0.01), and at both Days 7 and 21 for quality of sleep (p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). The patients’ overall opinion of treatment was also significantly in favour of s-r ibuprofen, which was rated ‘good or excellent’ by 80% (24/30), compared with only 38% of patients (11/29) receiving s-r diclofenac sodium (p = 0.002).

Two patients (6%) receiving s-r diclofenac sodium ceased treatment owing to dizziness and severe diarrhoea, respectively; there were no withdrawals in the ibuprofen-treated group. Ten (32%) patients in the s-r diclofenac group reported a total of 12 adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal in nature), compared with three (10%) patients in the s-r ibuprofen group who reported only three events (abdominal pain, insomnia and constipation).

In conclusion, although both NSAID treatments improved the clinical condition of patients with painful osteoarthritis, statistically significant differences in favour of once-daily s-r ibuprofen (1600?mg) were demonstrated in terms of efficacy, indicating a potential therapeutic advantage for this formulation. Ibuprofen was also better tolerated than diclofenac sodium (100?mg/day), the latter being associated with gastrointestinal side effects in a significant proportion of patients. Sustained-release ibuprofen (Brufen Retard®) thus represents an important addition to the available therapeutic armamentarium of once-daily NSAID formulations.     

Tiapride and chlordiazepoxide in acute alcohol withdrawal. A controlled clinical trial

The efficacy of chlordiazepoxide and tiapride in the management of acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome was compared in a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial. The mean daily dose for both preparations on the first two days was four capsules, i.e., 200 mg for chlordiazepoxide and 400 mg for tiapride. Thereafter the patients were treated according to the relief of symptoms obtained. The treatment periods lasted 3-5 days. Both drugs effectively alleviated alcohol withdrawal symptoms, especially anxiety, fear, hallucinations, insomnia, sweating, tremor, abdominal pain and vertigo. Seventy percent of the patients in the chlordiazepoxide and 42% in the tiapride group considered the drug effective. The difference was statistically significant in favour of chlordiazepoxide (p less than 0.05). Tiapride is an alternative drug in the treatment of this condition, if benzodiazepines are to be avoided.     

A controlled study of diflunisal in Sprains and Strains

Summary

A preliminary double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in general practice to compare the efficacy of treatment with diflunisal (500?mg) twice daily and a combination of dextropropoxyphene (65?mg) plus paracetamol (650?mg) 3-times daily for 3 days in relieving pain associated with strains and sprains. Analysis of the results from 51 patients showed that both treatments were equally effective in relieving spontaneous pain and pain on movement after 1 and 3 days, and there were no differences between the two groups in patients' overall evaluation of treatment or physicians' assessment of therapeutic response. Both treatments were well tolerated during the short-term period of the trial.     

The use of diflunisal in post-operative pain: a report of double-blind comparative trials in patients after meniscectomy.

A series of double-blind randomized trials was carried out in patients suffering from moderate to severe pain after meniscectomy to assess the analgesic effectiveness of diflunisal. In a single-dose study, 150 patients received either diflunisal (125 mg, 250 mg or 500 mg), aspirin (600 mg), or placebo, and hourly assessments were made of pain severity over an 8-hour period. The results showed that 500 mg diflunisal produced comparable relief to aspirin within 3 to 4 hours, but the analgesic effect continued for longer and was still very marked after 8 hours. A multi-dose study in 120 patients receiving doses of diflunisal (375 mg or 500 mg) or placebo confirmed the overall effectiveness of twice daily treatment with diflunisal. In a comparative study against oxyphenbutazone (200 mg t.i.d.), hourly pain scores made on the first post-operative day showed that a single dose of 500 mg diflunisal produced comparable relief over a 12-hour period to that with 2 doses of 200 mg oxyphenbutazone. Overall response to multiple doses was assessed as excellent or good by all the patients receiving diflunisal. Preliminary results are reported on the use of diflunisal in other painful conditions.     

Analgesic efficacy of low-dose ibuprofen in dental extraction pain

A single-dose, double-blind, randomized, parallel trial was conducted to compare the analgesic efficacy of oral ibuprofen (I) 100, 200, or 400 mg, aspirin (ASA) 650 mg, and placebo in moderate to severe pain after extraction of impacted teeth. Subjective, self-evaluated pain intensity and pain relief reports, hourly for 6 hours, were used as indexes of analgesic response. Data on 227 evaluable patients showed significant differences among the 4 active treatments and placebo (p less than 0.001) by most measurements of analgesia. Although no consistent, significant differences were observed among the active drugs, I 400 mg performed the best, followed by I 200 mg, ASA 650 mg, and I 100 mg. Remedication was required by 59% patients receiving I 400 mg, 67% taking I 200 mg, 73% taking ASA 650 mg, 74% taking I 100 mg, and 96% receiving placebo. Differences between I 400 mg and I 100 mg were significant for remedication data (p less than 0.05). Side effects were minor, infrequent, and not dose related. In this study, I 100 mg was distinctly superior to placebo and probably as effective as ASA 650 mg in relieving pain. Only a shallow dose response of ibuprofen was observed.     

Injectable ketoprofen vs. acetylsalicylic acid for the relief of severe cancer pain: a double-blind, crossover trial

Thirty-six patients suffering from severe pain due to bone involvement from cancer participated in an analgesic study that compared single doses of ketoprofen 100 or 400 mg iv or injectable acetylsalicylic acid 1 g. A double-blind, balanced incomplete block design was adopted, in which each patient received two of the three test treatments, with an interval of 24 hours. Ketoprofen 400 mg proved significantly superior to 100 mg of the same drug, and was superior to 1 g of the acetylsalicylic acid derivative in the patients' assessment of the overall response. This was expressed by a visual analog scale and preferences. No adverse reaction was observed with any treatment.     

Intramuscular picenadol in patients with postoperative pain

1. The analgesic efficacy and safety of a single 50 mg intramuscular dose of rac-picenadol, a centrally acting agonist-antagonist opioid analgesic, were compared with pethidine (meperidine) 100 mg and placebo in 60 patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain using hourly pain intensity and relief measurements for up to 6 h following injection of the study medications. 2. Both picenadol and pethidine were statistically significantly (P < 0.05) more effective than placebo in reducing pain intensity and in increasing total relief. Patients receiving picenadol and pethidine had higher frequency of somnolence than patients receiving placebo. In addition, patients receiving picenadol 50 mg experienced a higher incidence of confusion (30%), speech disorders (30%), and tremors (25%) than the patients receiving either pethidine or placebo. 3. These results were compared with those of a similar study which investigated the effects of a 25 mg intramuscular dose of picenadol vs pethidine and placebo. This comparison suggests that 25 mg of picenadol is a more acceptable dosage since both 25 and 50 mg were effective dosages.     

The use of diflunisal in post-operative pain: a report of double-blind Comparative trials in patients after meniscectomy

Summary

A series of double-blind randomized trials was carried out in patients suffering from moderate to severe pain after meniscectomy to assess the analgesic effectiveness of diflunisal. In a single-dose study, 150 patients received either diflunisal (125?mg, 250?mg or 500?mg), aspirin (600?mg), or placebo, and hourly assessments were made of pain severity over an 8-hour period. The results showed that 500?mg diflunisal produced comparable relief to aspirin within 3 to 4 hours, but the analgesic effect continued for longer and was still very marked after 8 hours. A multi-dose study in 120 patients receiving doses of diflunisal (375?mg or 500?mg) or placebo confirmed the overall effectiveness of twice daily treatment with diflunisal. In a comparative study against oxyphenbutazone (200?mg t.i.d.), hourly pain scores made on the first postoperative day showed that a single dose of 500?mg diflunisal produced comparable relief over a 12-hour period to that with 2 doses of 200?mg oxyphenbutazone. Overall response to multiple doses was assessed as excellent or good by all the patients receiving diflunisal. Preliminary results are reported on the use of diflunisal in other painful conditions.     

Analgesic effect of naproxen sodium, codeine, a naproxen-codeine combination and aspirin on the postoperative pain of oral surgery

In a double-blind study, 198 outpatients with pain after oral surgery were randomly assigned to treatment with a single oral dose of naproxen sodium 550 mg, codeine sulfate 60 mg, a combination of naproxen sodium 550 mg with codeine sulfate 60 mg, aspirin 650 mg or placebo. Using a self-rating record, subjects rated their pain and its relief hourly for 12 hours after medication. Orthogonal contrasts for the four treatments making up the factorial component showed that the naproxen effect was significant for every measurement of total and peak analgesia; the codeine effect was significant for total and peak pain relief and patients' overall evaluation. The naproxen-codeine interaction was not statistically significant for any measure, which suggests that the analgesic effect of the combination represents the additive effect of its constituents. Based on pairwise comparisons, aspirin was significantly superior to placebo for most measures of effect, naproxen was significantly superior to both aspirin and codeine for all measures and the combination was significantly superior to naproxen for patients' overall evaluation. No more patients experienced adverse effects with aspirin or naproxen than with placebo, but significantly more patients receiving the codeine-containing treatments experienced adverse effects than those receiving aspirin and naproxen.     

Dose Response and Safety of Cizolirtine Citrate (E-4018) in Patients with Pain Following Extraction of Third Molars

Summary

The objectives of this study were to determine the dose response and safety of the oral analgesic cizolirtine citrate (E-4018) in patients with postoperative pain after third molar extraction. This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, parallelgroup study. Doses of E-4018 were 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg. The primary outcome measure of efficacy was patient assessment of pain severity, determined from serial visual analogue scales (VAS) over a four-hour investigation period. Other efficacy measures included the number of patients taking escape analgesic and the time before it was taken, and an overall assessment of pain relief on a four-point categorical scale.

There was no significant difference between any of the E-4018 treatment groups and placebo in terms of the AUC for VAS pain scores over time. The percentages of patients who took paracetamol within five hours of their dose were 100%, 95%, 78% and 82% for the placebo, 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg E-4018 groups, respectively. The time to first use of paracetamol was significantly different for the 100 mg and 150 mg E-4018 groups compared to placebo. There were 17 adverse events, of which five were possibly related to the study medication (one in the placebo group and four in the 150 mg E-4018 group).

We conclude that there was a dose-related trend in the percentage of patients requiring paracetamol within five hours of their study medication, and in the percentage of patients that recorded the treatment as providing good or excellent treatment of pain. There was, however, no firm evidence of a dose-related analgesic effect over the dose range of Cizolirtine chosen for this study. E-4018 was well tolerated in all patients.     

Dose response and safety of cizolirtine citrate (E-4018) in patients with pain following extraction of third molars

The objectives of this study were to determine the dose response and safety of the oral analgesic cizolirtine citrate (E-4018) in patients with postoperative pain after third molar extraction. This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study. Doses of E-4018 were 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg. The primary outcome measure of efficacy was patient assessment of pain severity, determined from serial visual analogue scales (VAS) over a four-hour investigation period. Other efficacy measures included the number of patients taking escape analgesic and the time before it was taken, and an overall assessment of pain relief on a four-point categorical scale. There was no significant difference between any of the E-4018 treatment groups and placebo in terms of the AUC for VAS pain scores over time. The percentages of patients who took paracetamol within five hours of their dose were 100%, 95%, 78% and 82% for the placebo, 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg E-4018 groups, respectively. The time to first use of paracetamol was significantly different for the 100 mg and 150 mg E-4018 groups compared to placebo. There were 17 adverse events, of which five were possibly related to the study medication (one in the placebo group and four in the 150 mg E-4018 group). We conclude that there was a dose-related trend in the percentage of patients requiring paracetamol within five hours of their study medication, and in the percentage of patients that recorded the treatment as providing good or excellent treatment of pain. There was, however, no firm evidence of a dose-related analgesic effect over the dose range of Cizolirtine chosen for this study. E-4018 was well tolerated in all patients.     

The analgesic effect of etoricoxib relative to that of cetaminophen analgesics: a randomized, controlled single-dose study in acute dental impaction pain

BACKGROUND: To compare the analgesic effect of single doses of etoricoxib 120 mg, oxycodone/ acetaminophen 10 mg/650 mg and codeine/ acetaminophen 60 mg/600 mg in acute pain using the dental impaction model. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients reported pain intensity and pain relief (16 times) and global scores (twice) during a 24-h period. The primary endpoint was the overall analgesic effect, total pain relief over 6 h (TOPAR6). Other endpoints were patient global evaluation, time to onset (2-stopwatch method), duration of analgesic effect (median time to and amount of rescue medication use). Tolerability was evaluated by overall and opioid-related (nausea and vomiting) adverse experiences. RESULTS: 302 patients (mean age 23; 63% women; 63 % White) were randomized to etoricoxib 120 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10 mg/650 mg, codeine/acetaminophen 60 mg/600 mg, and placebo (2:2:1:1). Etoricoxib demonstrated significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy (TOPAR6) (13.2 units) versus oxycodone/acetaminophen (10.2 units); and codeine/acetaminophen (6.0 units); p < 0.001 for all. All active treatments were superior to placebo. Median time to onset was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter for oxycodone/acetaminophen (20 min) and numerically but not significantly shorter (p = 0.259) for codeine/acetaminophen (26 min) compared with etoricoxib (40 min). Etoricoxib (24 h) had a significantly longer lasting analgesic effect than oxycodone/acetaminophen (5.3 h), codeine/acetaminophen (2.7 h), and placebo (1.7 h) (p < 0.001 for all). Etoricoxib patients experienced fewer clinical adverse experiences than patients on oxycodone/acetaminophen and codeine/acetaminophen, specifically, significantly (p < 0.05) fewer episodes of nausea. CONCLUSION: Etoricoxib 120 mg provided superior overall analgesic effect with a smaller percentage of patients experiencing nausea versus both oxycodone/acetaminophen 10 mg/650 mg and codeine/acetaminophen 60 mg/600 mg.     

Comparison of slow-release indomethacin and diflunisal in patients with arthrosis

A double-blind, crossover study was carried out in 44 patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip or knee to compare the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with a new slow-release formulation of indomethacin (50 mg) with that of diflunisal (250 mg). After a 1-week wash-out period, patients were allocated at random to receive 2 tablets daily of one or other preparation for 6 weeks before being crossed over to the alternative drug for a further 6 weeks. Aspirin was allowed as a rescue analgesic throughout the study. Subjective assessments of pain and objective assessments of joint mobility were made before the start of treatment and at the end of each period, and details were recorded of rescue analgesic usage and any side-effects. Analysis of the results from 42 patients showed that whilst both treatments helped to alleviate pain, patients' overall evaluation of efficacy at the end of the study indicated that indomethacin was slightly more effective than diflunisal and there was a significant preference for indomethacin. Both drugs were well tolerated and none of the side-effects, reported in about 15% of patients on each drug, resulted in any withdrawals.     

Diflunisal in general practice

Summary

A large-scale, double-blind comparative study was carried out in general practice to assess the relative efficacy and tolerance of diflunisal and aspirin in patients suffering from acute painful conditions such as sprains and strains, osteoarthritis, etc. Patients received either 250?mg or 500?mg diflunisal twice daily, or 600?mg aspirin 4-times daily for 5 days. The results of subjective assessments of pain relief from the daily records of 1902 patients (967 on diflunisal, 935 on aspirin), and the overall assessment of response by both doctors and patients, showed that diflunisal was significantly better than aspirin. Gastric side-effects were more common and more severe in patients receiving aspirin, and more often led to withdrawal of treatment.     

Cizolirtine citrate (E-4018) in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain

This study was performed to determine the efficacy and safety of oral cizolirtine citrate, a novel agent, in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Cizolirtine was tested in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study, having previously been shown to have significant analgesic and anti-hyperalgesic action in neuropathic pain models and preliminary human studies. Twenty-five patients with neuropathic pain, which was persistent for at least three months, and scored > 30 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), were included. A subgroup of five patients had primary skin allodynia, i.e. pain evoked by non-noxious stimuli in the territory of the injured nerve. Cizolirtine 200 mg or placebo was administered twice daily for a treatment period of 21 days, each separated by a washout interval of 7 days. Assessments of skin allodynia were performed using the graded monofilaments (von Frey hairs) on days 1 (predose), 14 and 21 (90 min postdose). All patients were instructed to maintain a daily pain diary throughout the study. Results showed that the differences in VAS and allodynia scores between cizolirtine and placebo treatments were not significant in the overall analysis (p > or = 0.05); cizolirtine was well tolerated. In a subgroup of five patients with primary allodynia, a 53% reduction in VAS score from baseline at rest (p = 0.007) and 55% on movement (p = 0.0002) at day 21 was observed with cizolirtine, as compared to 8% at rest (p = 0.5215) and 13% on movement (p = 0.4187) with placebo. Similarly, allodynia improved with cizolirtine (p = 0.03) but not with placebo (p = 0.9) in this subgroup. Cizolirtine may be effective in primary allodynia after peripheral nerve injury, and a further trial in a larger number of such subjects is warranted.