一项双盲、随机、对照平行组研究,评估阿西美辛治疗骨关节炎的疗效和安全性。

C T Chou, Y Y Tsai
{"title":"一项双盲、随机、对照平行组研究,评估阿西美辛治疗骨关节炎的疗效和安全性。","authors":"C T Chou,&nbsp;Y Y Tsai","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new form of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID), acematacin (Acemet), with indomethacin, in patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA). Patients diagnosed with OA were included in a double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study A total of 42 patients were randomized to either acemetacin 60 mg t.i.d. or indomethacin 25 mg t.i.d. for 28 days. At an outpatient clinic, each patient was followed up regularly for efficacy, compliance and possible adverse events. Both drugs produced a statistically significant improvement for primary efficacy variables: change of pain score during motion and restriction of body movement. Values for overall tolerability and incidence of gastrointestinal side effects were significantly lower for acemetacin than for indomethacin. We therefore suggest that acemetacin, by demonstrating significant tolerability and safety advantages, is as effective as indomethacin for the treatment of OA.</p>","PeriodicalId":13940,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical pharmacology research","volume":"22 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of acemetacin for the management of osteoarthritis.\",\"authors\":\"C T Chou,&nbsp;Y Y Tsai\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new form of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID), acematacin (Acemet), with indomethacin, in patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA). Patients diagnosed with OA were included in a double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study A total of 42 patients were randomized to either acemetacin 60 mg t.i.d. or indomethacin 25 mg t.i.d. for 28 days. At an outpatient clinic, each patient was followed up regularly for efficacy, compliance and possible adverse events. Both drugs produced a statistically significant improvement for primary efficacy variables: change of pain score during motion and restriction of body movement. Values for overall tolerability and incidence of gastrointestinal side effects were significantly lower for acemetacin than for indomethacin. We therefore suggest that acemetacin, by demonstrating significant tolerability and safety advantages, is as effective as indomethacin for the treatment of OA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of clinical pharmacology research\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of clinical pharmacology research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical pharmacology research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较一种新型非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)阿塞马他星(Acemet)与吲哚美辛对骨关节炎(OA)患者的疗效和耐受性。诊断为OA的患者被纳入一项双盲、随机、对照平行组研究,共有42名患者被随机分配到阿西美辛60mg t.d或吲哚美辛25mg t.d,持续28天。在门诊,定期随访每位患者的疗效、依从性和可能的不良事件。两种药物在主要疗效变量上均有统计学显著改善:运动时疼痛评分的改变和身体运动受限。阿西美辛的总体耐受性和胃肠道副作用发生率明显低于吲哚美辛。因此,我们认为阿西美辛具有显著的耐受性和安全性优势,与吲哚美辛治疗OA同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of acemetacin for the management of osteoarthritis.

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new form of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID), acematacin (Acemet), with indomethacin, in patients suffering from osteoarthritis (OA). Patients diagnosed with OA were included in a double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study A total of 42 patients were randomized to either acemetacin 60 mg t.i.d. or indomethacin 25 mg t.i.d. for 28 days. At an outpatient clinic, each patient was followed up regularly for efficacy, compliance and possible adverse events. Both drugs produced a statistically significant improvement for primary efficacy variables: change of pain score during motion and restriction of body movement. Values for overall tolerability and incidence of gastrointestinal side effects were significantly lower for acemetacin than for indomethacin. We therefore suggest that acemetacin, by demonstrating significant tolerability and safety advantages, is as effective as indomethacin for the treatment of OA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Good Clinical Practice Multicenter study of hyaluronic acid obtained by biotechnology to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety in knee osteoarthritis. Early and late effect of infliximab on circulating dendritic cells phenotype in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Treatment with oral biphosphonates can increase the sensitivity of sestamibi radionuclide imaging in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Telmisartan has the strongest binding affinity to angiotensin II type 1 receptor: comparison with other angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1