Double-blind, randomised, multi-centre clinical study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of nimesulide in comparison with etodalac in patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee.

P W Lücker, C Pawlowski, I Friedrich, F Faiella, E Magni
{"title":"Double-blind, randomised, multi-centre clinical study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of nimesulide in comparison with etodalac in patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee.","authors":"P W Lücker,&nbsp;C Pawlowski,&nbsp;I Friedrich,&nbsp;F Faiella,&nbsp;E Magni","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a double-blind study, the efficacy and tolerability of nimesulide 200mg/day, administered orally, was compared with etodolac 600mg/day in the treatment, for 3 months, of 200 patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee. Although spontaneous pain showed a significant improvement during the course of the study, there was no difference in the efficacy of either compound. Similarly, there was a progressive and significant reduction in the Lequesne functional index although no statistical difference was found between nimesulide and etodolac. The physician's overall assessment of efficacy was significantly in favour of nimesulide but the same assessment for patients who completed all 12 weeks showed no such bias. Adverse events (AEs) were generally mild or moderate and were commonly gastrointestinal in origin. There was no difference in the rate of incidence of AEs and, with the exception of week 8 where etodolac was apparently better tolerated, there were no statistical differences in tolerability between the two therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12056,"journal":{"name":"European journal of rheumatology and inflammation","volume":"14 2","pages":"29-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of rheumatology and inflammation","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

Abstract

In a double-blind study, the efficacy and tolerability of nimesulide 200mg/day, administered orally, was compared with etodolac 600mg/day in the treatment, for 3 months, of 200 patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee. Although spontaneous pain showed a significant improvement during the course of the study, there was no difference in the efficacy of either compound. Similarly, there was a progressive and significant reduction in the Lequesne functional index although no statistical difference was found between nimesulide and etodolac. The physician's overall assessment of efficacy was significantly in favour of nimesulide but the same assessment for patients who completed all 12 weeks showed no such bias. Adverse events (AEs) were generally mild or moderate and were commonly gastrointestinal in origin. There was no difference in the rate of incidence of AEs and, with the exception of week 8 where etodolac was apparently better tolerated, there were no statistical differences in tolerability between the two therapies.

双盲、随机、多中心临床研究评估尼美舒利与依托达拉在膝关节骨性关节炎患者中的疗效和耐受性。
在一项双盲研究中,比较了尼美舒利200mg/天口服与依托度酸600mg/天口服治疗200例膝关节骨关节炎患者3个月的疗效和耐受性。虽然自发性疼痛在研究过程中表现出明显的改善,但两种化合物的疗效没有差异。同样,尽管尼美舒利和乙妥酸之间没有统计学差异,但Lequesne功能指数也有渐进式的显著降低。医生对尼美舒利疗效的总体评估明显支持尼美舒利,但对完成所有12周的患者的相同评估没有显示出这种偏倚。不良事件(ae)一般为轻度或中度,通常起源于胃肠道。ae的发生率没有差异,除了第8周依托酸的耐受性明显更好外,两种治疗的耐受性没有统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信