ABSTRACT
A double-blind, comparative, multicentre study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of maprotiline (Ludiomil) and viloxazine as antidepressants in general practice usage is described. Progress was measured at weekly intervals over the 4-week trial duration using a modified Hamilton Rating Scale and patient self-assessment visual analogue scales. A total of 127 patients were randomized into two groups; 63 patients being allocated maprotiline and 64 patients being allocated viloxazine. Of the patients receiving maprotiline, 12 withdrew during the course of the study compared to 9 patients receiving viloxazine. Maprotiline appeared to be superior to viloxazine on the sleep and sadness scales and some evidence to show it to be better also on the tension scale. Whilst the trend favoured maprotiline, the two drugs did not appear to be significantly different on either the doctors' or the patients' assessments. There was little to choose between the drugs in terms of side-effects or ultimate patient tolerability and preference.
Subject(s)
Anthracenes/therapeutic use , Depression/drug therapy , Maprotiline/therapeutic use , Morpholines/therapeutic use , Viloxazine/therapeutic use , Adjustment Disorders/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Clinical Trials as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Drug Evaluation , Female , Humans , Male , Maprotiline/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Viloxazine/adverse effectsABSTRACT
In a random crossover study in general practice, sixty patients with heart failure were given one week's maintenance treatment with the recommended dosage of Burinex K or Lasix+K. Burinex K appeared to be easier to swallow than the supplement tablets of Lasix+K although the differences were not significant. Patients showed a highly significant preference to take two tablets on one occasion (Burinex K) rather than two different types of tablet on three separate occasions (Lasix+K). Despite pharmacological arguments in favour of stimultaneous versus separate administration of potassium supplement and diuretic, patient acceptibility is of over-riding importance in the long-term.
Subject(s)
Bumetanide/administration & dosage , Diuretics/administration & dosage , Furosemide/administration & dosage , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Potassium/administration & dosage , Aged , Bumetanide/therapeutic use , Clinical Trials as Topic , Deglutition , Delayed-Action Preparations , Drug Combinations , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Furosemide/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Potassium/therapeutic use , Surveys and Questionnaires , TabletsABSTRACT
Three hundred and twelve patients suffering from painful conditions were admitted to a multicentre, double-blind controlled trial, conducted in general practice in which five analgesics--floctafenine (Idarac), paracetamol, aspirin, dihydrocodeine and pentazocine--were compared. Overall ratings of analgesic effect placed floctafenine first in rank order. Floctafenine was statistically significantly superior in effect to pentazocine but not to the other three agents as far as doctor ratings were concerned; and superior to both pentazocine and dihydrocodeine in the opinion of patients. Fewer patients experienced side-effects on floctafenine than on the other four analgesics and this difference between floctafenine and pentazocine, and floctafenine and dihydrocodeine was statistically significant.
