萘丁美酮或萘普生与甲氨蝶呤合用治疗类风湿关节炎的不良反应比较

目的 比较非甾体抗炎免疫药（NSAIDs)与慢作用抗风湿病药（SAARDs)合用治疗类风湿关节炎（RA）的不良反应发生情况。方法 对萘丁美酮（NAB）＋甲氨喋呤（MTX）和萘普生（NAP）＋MTX两组病人采用问卷方式进行调查,同时查阅病人的病历和各种化验单。资料采用Epi info软件进行统计分析。结果 两组病人治疗后的不良反应出现率除胃痛的差异有显性（P＜0．05）外,其余的不良反应出现率之间的差异均无显性（P＞0．05）。结论 在RA治疗上常采用的NSAIDs与SAARDs合并用药中,并未体现出COX－2选择性抑制剂NAB合用MTX在不良反应方面优于NAP合用MTX。     

萘丁美酮双盲治疗类风湿关节炎的Ⅱ期临床试验

萘丁美酮是一种新型非酸性非甾体抗炎药，为了比较研究该药与阳性对照药萘普生对类风淡关节炎的疗效和安全性，我们组织全国三个中心对萘丁美酮和萘普生治疗类风湿关节炎进行了随机、双盲多中心和平行性的Ⅱ期临床试验。结果表明：经４ｗｋ治疗后，萘丁美酮总有效率为６６．６７％、萘普生总有效率为５８．３３％，两者疗效接近。萘丁美酮的不良反应发生率为１１．６７％，萘普生的不良反应发生率为２３．３３％，差异显著，提示萘丁     

恶丙秦和萘普生治疗类风湿关节炎随机双盲对照临床试验

恶丙秦是一种新型丙酸类非甾体抗炎药。为了比较研究该药与阳性对照药萘普生治疗类风湿关节炎的疗的安全性，我们进行了随机、双盲和平行性的Ⅱ期临床试验。结果表明：恶丙秦９４００ｍｇ／次，每日一次，睡前顿服）治疗６０例类风湿关节炎患者４周和８周时总有效率分别为４５．００％和７１．６７％；萘普生（２００ｍｇ／次，每日二次）治疗５９例类风湿关节炎患者４和８时总有效率分别为４５．７６％和７２．８８％，两药的疗效相     

萘丁美酮治疗类风湿关节炎

目的 :评估萘丁美酮对类风湿关节炎 (RA)的疗效和安全性。方法 :76例RA病人分 2组 ,萘丁美酮组 4 6例 ,男性 14例 ,女性 32例 ,年龄 4 5a±s 11a(2 2～ 68a) ,给萘丁美酮片 1g ,po ,qd× 4wk。双氯芬酸组 30例 ,男性 6例 ,女性 2 4例 ,年龄 4 4a± 10a(2 6～ 64a) ,给双氯芬酸 5 0mg ,po ,qd× 4wk。观察其临床疗效、实验室指标和不良反应。结果 :萘丁美酮组总有效率为 91% ,明显高于双氯芬酸组 (73% ,P <0 .0 5 ) ,2组治疗后临床各指标均有明显改善 (P <0 .0 1) ,萘丁美酮组不良反应为 15 % ,明显低于双氯芬酸组 (37% ,P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :萘丁美酮对RA具有良好疗效和较低的不良反应     

民美舒利和萘普生随机双盲对照治疗类风湿关节炎

为比较研究尼美舒利（ＮＩＭ）和萘普生（ＮＡＰ）治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效和安全性，将试验设计为随机、双盲、平行性和多中心的比较研究。试验组病例数为６０例，每次口服尼美舒利１００ｍｇ，每日二次，疗程２周，累积用药４周者２８例；对照组病例数为６１例，每次口服萘普生２５０ｍｇ，每日二次，疗程２周，累积用药４周者２９例。结果表明，２、４周时尼美舒利的总有效率为５３．３３％，６０．７１％，萘普生的总有效率为４７     

口服泼尼松龙或萘普生治疗痛风性关节炎

口服泼尼松龙和萘普生治疗4天以上，在痛风性关节炎的初始治疗方面疗效是相当的。     

萘普酮,萘普生临床止痛疗效评估

滕州市工人医院伤骨科是治疗风湿、类风湿而致的各种软组织及骨关节疼痛性疾病和中老年退变性骨关节病、颈椎病、腰椎间盘突出症等疾病的医疗专科。年门诊和住院治疗的病人高达1万余人次,在临床治疗应用的药品中,主要有萘普生、消炎痛、芬布芬、炎痛喜康等。这些药物对控制病人临床症状,减轻     

美洛昔康与萘丁美酮治疗类风湿关节炎的对照研究

目的比较研究新型非甾体抗炎药美洛昔康和阳性对照药萘丁美酮治疗活动期类风湿关节炎(RA)的疗效及安全性.方法采用随机、双盲、对照方法,选择疾病活动期RA患者40例.治疗组用美洛昔康15mg·d-1;对照组用萘丁美酮1000mg·d-1.4周为一疗程.结果两组共40例病人完成了4周的治疗,16例病人用药至8周.结果显示,两药均能显著改善RA患者的临床指标.治疗组(n=20)与对照组(n=20)在4周时总有效率分别为60%和55%.8周时两组疗效均为87.5%.两组疗效相比无显著差异(P＞0.05).治疗组有2例(10%)发生与药物有关的不良反应,程度较轻.对照组有2例(10%)发生药物不良反应,其中1例给予对症处理.两药药物不良反应发生率无差异(P＞0.05).结论美洛昔康对我国RA患者有良好的治疗作用且药物不良反应小.     

Piroxicam versus naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis

Summary

Forty-five patients with definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated into two groups and treated with piroxicam 20?mg once daily or naproxen 2.50?mg twice daily in a 3-month, double-blind study. The results were available in 38 patients (21 in the piroxicam group and 17 in the naproxen group). Both drugs showed significant effects on the majority of clinical parameters compared to baseline. However, piroxicam was significantly superior to naproxen in reducing the grade of swollen joints. Moreover, piroxicam had better efficacy as shown by the number of patients who preferred it to previous therapy; 13 (62% of the patients entered) compared to 8 patients (47%) who preferred naproxen. Tolerance of the two drugs was similar. Two patients in each group dropped out due to side-effects.     

Double-blind evaluation of low-dose proglumetacin versus naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis out-patients

Summary

Forty out-patients with acute flare’ of chronic rheumatoid arthritis were treated orally with either 150?mg proglumetacin or 250?mg naproxen twice daily over 3 weeks, according to a randomized, double-blind design. Before and after 1 and 3 weeks of treatment, the number of painful and of swollen joints, the intensity of pain and function tests (morning stiffness, time to walk over 15 metres and hand grip strength) were measured and recorded. Haematologv was investigated before and after treatment. Two patients in the proglumetacin group did not report to control and were considered drop-outs; 2 more (1 in each group) interrupted treatment before completion because of the onset or aggravation of accessory symptoms. Efficacy, assessed in 17 patients on proglumetacin and in 19 on naproxen, was good with both drugs, even though only those patients given proglumetacin experienced a significant (p&0.01) decrease in the number of painful joints. None of the haematological tests showed clinically significant variations after either treatment. Tolerance could be assessed in 18 and 20 patients given proglumetacin or naproxen, respectively Accessory symptoms appeared or were aggravated in 5 and 3 patients, respectively.     

阿克他利与甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的比较

目的 :比较阿克他利和甲氨蝶呤对类风湿关节炎 (RA)的疗效和安全性。方法 :12 0例RA病人随机分为 2组 ,阿克他利组 80例 ,口服阿克他利10 0mg ,tid× 12wk。甲氨蝶呤组 4 0例 ,口服甲氨蝶呤 10mg ,qw× 12wk。结果 :阿克他利组总有效率为 73% ,甲氨蝶呤组为 78% (P >0 .0 5)。不良反应发生率分别为 9%和 18% ,差异有显著意义 (P <0 .0 5)。结论 :阿克他利治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效与甲氨蝶呤相似 ,但在安全性方面明显优于甲氨蝶呤。     

尼美舒利治疗骨关节炎和类风湿关节炎的临床疗效

目的：了解尼美舒利治疗骨关节炎（ＯＡ）及类风湿关节炎（ＲＡ）的疗效及副作用。方法：尼美舒利组：ＯＡ和ＲＡ各３０例，予尼美舒利１００ｍｇ，ｐｏ，ｂｉｄ；对照组：ＯＡ和ＲＡ各３０例，予双氯芬酸２５ｍｇ，ｐｏ，ｔｉｄ，或萘普生２５０ｍｇ，ｐｏ，ｂｉｄ，观察４ｗｋ。结果：治疗前后２组病人各项临床指标均有明显改善；而实验室指标改善不明显（Ｐ＞０．０５）。２组总有效率分别是８８％和８５％，差别无显著意义；副作用发生率分别为３％和１３％，差别有显著意义（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论：尼美舒利抗炎镇痛疗效肯定，副作用较少，是一种安全性较佳的非甾体类消炎止痛药。     

雷公藤缓释片与雷公藤片治疗类风湿关节炎的对比

类风湿关节炎１２６例，采用随机单盲法分为２组。治疗组６４例（男性１８例，女性４６例；年龄４６±ｓ１３ａ）采用雷公藤缓释片（ＴＷ－ＳＲ）２片，ｐｏ，ｂｉｄ×４ｗｋ。对照组６２例（男性１８例，女性４４例；年龄４６±１５ａ）采用普通雷公藤片（ＴＷ）２片，ｐｏ，ｔｉｄ×４ｗｋ。结果：总有效率ＴＷ－ＳＲ组和ＴＷ组分别为９４％和９０％，不良反应发生率分别为９％和５６％（Ｐ＜０．０１），表明ＴＷ－ＳＲ优于ＴＷ。     

Clinical therapeutic trial of sodium meclofenamate and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis,with comments on the use of placebos in clinical trials

Summary

Forty patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were entered into a single-blind study of 12-weeks' duration to compare the efficacy and tolerance of 100?mg sodium meclofenamate 3-times daily and 250?mg naproxen twice daily. Disease activity was defined by the presence of a Ritchie Articular Index score of greater than 15. Patients were assessed at 4-week intervals. Analysis of variance of the data from those patients who completed 12 weeks in the trial showed that in the sodium meclofenamate group there was a significant improvement in articular index, left grip strength, pain severity and patients' global assessment over the course of the study. In the naproxen group, there was a significant improvement in articular index, grip strength and pain severity over the study. Pairwise comparisons showed that morning stiffness improved significantly from baseline to 12 weeks only, in both treatment groups. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups for any of the measurements at any time period during the study. In the sodium meclofenamate group, there were 4 drop-outs due to inadequate efficacy and 6 in the naproxen group. Four patients in the sodium meclofenamate group and 2 patients in the naproxen group dropped out of the study because of side-effects, primarily nausea. These results suggest that sodium meclofenamate was equally well tolerated and as effective as naproxen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in this group of patients.     

伊索昔康治疗类风湿性关节炎

伊索昔康是一种昔康类苯并噻嗪衍生物。作者用国产伊索昔康治疗典型类风湿性关节炎87例,疗效满意。总有效74例,占85％,其中显效50例(58％)。该药副作用少而轻,是一种较好的抗炎镇痛新药,作者还随机对37例病人用伊索昔康和萘普生(naproxen)作了交叉对照试验,两药的疗效结果和副作用发生率无显著差异。     

来氟米特治疗类风湿关节炎双盲试验

目的 :比较来氟米特和甲氨蝶呤治疗类风湿关节炎的疗效及安全性。方法 :80例类风湿关节炎病人、随机分配入 2组 ,各组 4 0例。 2组病人于试验前 1wk停用原有非甾体抗炎药 ,服用奥沙普秦(oxaprozin)每晚 2片。第 1组服抗炎 1号 ,每日 2片 ;抗炎 3号 ,每周 1次 ,每次 6片。第 2组服抗炎 2号 ,每日 2片 ;抗炎 4号每周 1次 ,每次 6片。 4～ 6wk后 2组停用奥沙普秦 ,其余服药至 2 4wk后揭盲。结果 :来氟米特组总有效率 93 % ,显效 85% ,甲氨蝶呤组分别为 93 %和 83 % ,P >0 .0 5。不良反应 :来氟米特组 9例占 2 3% ,甲氨蝶呤组 17例占4 3 %。结论 :来氟米特疗效与甲氨蝶呤相似 ,不良反应则较低