High-dose alizapride versus high-dose domperidone: a double-blind comparative study in the management of cis-platinum-induced emesis.

A double-blind, randomized crossover trial was carried out in 44 cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with cis-platinum to compare the anti-emetic effectiveness and tolerance of alizapride and domperidone given in high dosage. Patients received 5 administrations of either 4 mg alizapride/kg body weight or 0.6 mg domperidone/kg during a chemotherapy session and then the alternative anti-emetic during the next session. Treatment order was randomized. Patients were followed-up for 12 hours and details recorded of the total time during which there was some nausea, the duration of mild and severe nausea, and the number of episodes of mild and severe vomiting. A note was also made of the duration of mild and moderate sedation, and the incidence and severity of any other side-effects either probably or possibly related to anti-emetic medication. The investigator gave an overall assessment of the severity of nausea and vomiting experienced during each chemotherapy session and an opinion on the comparative effectiveness of the two anti-emetics. At the end of the two sessions, patients were asked to state a preference, if any, for one or other treatment and to select which they would like to have for their next chemotherapy session. The results showed that whilst both alizapride and domperidone appeared to be equally effective in limiting mild nausea, alizapride was significantly better in preventing severe nausea and episodes of vomiting. In those cases where a positive choice between treatments was made, alizapride was considered to be significantly better than domperidone by the investigator and more patients preferred alizapride and would select it for their next session.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Tiapride versus placebo: a double-blind comparative study in the management of Huntington's chorea.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was carried out in 29 patients with Huntington's chorea to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerance of high doses of tiapride in the management of neurological symptoms. Patients were allocated at random into 3 groups to receive 3 g tiapride daily for two periods of 3 weeks either preceded, interrupted or followed by a 3-week period on placebo. Patients were assessed on entry and at the end of each treatment period using a battery of tests designed to measure choreatic movements, motor skills, recognition and reaction times, and mental state. Twenty-three patients completed the trial; only 2 of the 6 drop-outs withdrew because of drug-related side-effects (sedation and extrapyramidal signs). The results showed that tiapride treatment significantly improved choreatic movements and motor skills and these findings were supported by the objective psychometric measurements. Overall evaluation of effectiveness by the physician and patients indicated the significant superiority of tiapride over placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated and although there were significantly more reports of sedation and extrapyramidal signs whilst patients were receiving tiapride, these effects were rated as mild in most cases and did not interfere with treatment.

Veralipride versus conjugated oestrogens: a double-blind study in the management of menopausal hot flushes.

A double-blind, randomized study was carried out in 43 women, who had undergone spontaneous menopause at least 6 months earlier, to compare the effectiveness and tolerance of veralipride with that of a conjugated oestrogens preparation in the control of hot flushes. Twenty-one women received 100 mg veralipride per day and 22 were due to receive 1.25 mg per day of the hormone preparation over a period of 20 days but 3 women in the oestrogen group discontinued the trial without giving any reason. The number, duration and severity of hot flushes were assessed and scored at the start of the trial and during treatment. Statistical analysis of the results showed marked relief with both preparations but no significant difference between them in terms of effectiveness or tolerance. Veralipride, however, appeared to provide better control in patients who had complained of severe hot flushes initially.

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

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.