Search

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.

A double-blind crossover study was conducted in 15 patients with classical definite rheumatoid arthritis to compare the effect of sodium meclofenamate (300 mg daily) with placebo and indomethacin (100 mg daily). Each treatment was administered for 1 week to patients assigned at random to treatment sequences. The active drugs were shown to be significantly superior to placebo. Sodium meclofenamate alone reduced the articular index. Patient preference, however, was in favour of indomethacin.

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.

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 significant 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.

A single-blind crossover trial was carried out in 21 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis to assess the effectiveness and tolerance of sodium meclofenamate (300 mg per day) compared with placebo. After a 1-week washout period patients had two periods of active medication, each of 2 weeks, separated by 1 week on placebo. Morning stiffness, walking speed, pain score, patient impression of response, joint tenderness and power, work and maximum grip strength achieved by hand grip were all improved by sodium meclofenamate and an anti-inflammatory effect of the drug was demonstrated, with some reduction in the swelling of PIP joints. There was no advantage in assessing pain on full movement of the small joints of the hands in addition to direct tenderness. Power, work and rate of grip release achieved during hand grip provided more information about hand function than maximum grip strength alone. Lymphocyte transformation to non-specific mitogens was enhanced by the drug. Twelve patients had some form of gastro intestinal complaint during the study and it is suggested that diarrhoea is likely to prove to be the major limiting factor of acceptance by some patients.

Sodium meclofenamate (200 to 400 mg daily) was compared with aspirin (2.4 to 4.8 g daily) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in a 6-month, double-blind, multicentre study. Two groups of patients participated, one receiving stabilized doses of concomitant gold or steroid therapy and one not receiving such therapy. In these latter patients, sodium meclofenamate appeared to be more effective than aspirin; tenderness was reduced from 35% to 50% more on sodium meclofenamate throughout the study, the differences being statistically significant during the first 2 months, and over all condition improved in a significantly greater proportion of the patients receiving sodium meclofenamate. Among the patients receiving concomitant gold or steroid, neither drug appeared to be as effective as in the group not receiving the concomitant therapy and the results with both aspirin and sodium meclofenamate were virtually the same for all measures. With sodium meclofenamate the most common adverse reaction was diarrhoea; and with aspirin, it was tinnitus. The incidence of withdrawals for adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the two medication groups. Abnormal laboratory values were observed in a few patients, but the incidence did not differ between the groups. On the basis of the study, sodium meclofenamate appears to be relatively well tolerated and at least as effective as aspirin in the treatment of the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

Seventy-seven patients took part in a double-blind crossover trial to compare the effects of floctafenine, dextropropxyhene and aspirin in the relief of post-operative pain. Pain levels were recorded at hourly intervals and pain relief scores calculated. For Dose 1, the difference between the mean pain relief score for patients receiving floctafenin (12.8) and that for patients receiving dextropropoxyphen (6.2) was significant, (p smaller than 0.05) but the difference between the mean score for aspirin (9.2) and that for dextropropoxyphene was not significant. For Dose 2, there were no significant differences between the mean pain relief scores for floctafenine (12.5), for aspirin (10.9) and for dextropropoxyphene (13.2).