Efficacy and safety of lornoxicam compared with placebo and diclofenac in acute sciatica/lumbo-sciatica: an analysis from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group study.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of oral lornoxicam (LNX) as early treatment of acute sciatica/lumbo-sciatica was compared with placebo and diclofenac in a 5-day double-blind, randomised study. METHODS: Male or female patients (n = 171) aged 18-70 years with acute sciatica or lumbo-sciatica [acute sciatica defined as typical radiation of pain along the sciatic nerve (including radiating pain below the knee) and worsening of pain as defined by Lasegue's leg-raising test (< 60 degrees ) within 72 h and previous attack ceased > 3 months previously; lumbo-sciatica defined as symptoms of sciatica with concurrent lumbar pain and a predefined minimum pain score]. The dosage of study treatment was 8-24 mg/day LNX, 100-150 mg/day diclofenac or placebo. The primary end-point was the difference in pain intensity difference from baseline to 6 h (PID(0-6 h)) after the first dose of study treatment. Secondary end-points were pain relief, the cumulative sums of pain intensity difference and total pain relief on day 1 and on days 2-4. RESULTS: In total, 164 patients completed the study. Significant differences in PID between LNX and placebo were seen in the time interval 3-8 h after the first dose including PID(0-6 h) (p = 0.015). Secondary end-points favoured LNX vs. placebo, but in general were not significantly different. LNX and diclofenac had similar analgesic effect. Incidence and severity of adverse events were comparable for the three treatments; overall tolerability was rated as very good/good by 93% of the patients. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the analgesic efficacy of LNX is superior to placebo and similar to diclofenac in acute sciatica/lumbo-sciatica.

[Follow up after an abnormal pap smear: time interval acceptable, nature of follow up leaves room for improvement]. / Vervolgonderzoek na een afwijkend uitstrijkje: tijdsinterval acceptabel, aard van het vervolgonderzoek vaak niet.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the interval between an abnormal Pap smear and follow-up is too long and whether the guidelines for histological follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear are being followed. DESIGN: Descriptive. METHOD: Data on all Pap smears of a minimum Pap class 3a (moderate dysplasia) from the national cervical-cancer screening programme in the Rotterdam area of the Netherlands were acquired from the Pathological Anatomical National Automated Archive (PALGA). The test results from each woman were arranged chronologically and the nature of the follow-up cervical examinations (cytological and histological) was recorded. The observation period was 360 days. The average interval in days between Pap smear and follow-up as well as the nature of the follow-up were analysed. RESULTS: In total, data on 156 women were analysed. In 93% of women follow-up was done during our observation period. The average interval was 60 days. In 80% of the women follow-up took place within 3 months and in 90% within 6 months. In 32% of women in the follow-up group the Pap smear was repeated at their first follow-up visit and in the remaining cases, a histological examination was performed according to the guidelines. In 7% of cases no cytological or histological follow-up at all took place within the year. CONCLUSION: The average interval between an abnormal Pap smear and follow-up is acceptable because of the slow natural course of cervical carcinoma. Attention should be focused on the incorrect repetition of the cytological test and on the fact that in a number of cases no follow-up at all is done within 1 year.