异丙醇治疗肠绞痛:三剂量异丙醇与安慰剂治疗急性肠绞痛的多中心随机前瞻性双盲研究。

G Di Girolamo, A R de los Santos, M L Martí, E Valdés Quintana, M I Godoy, M A Morano, G Palomino, D Fandiño, A Greggio
{"title":"异丙醇治疗肠绞痛:三剂量异丙醇与安慰剂治疗急性肠绞痛的多中心随机前瞻性双盲研究。","authors":"G Di Girolamo,&nbsp;A R de los Santos,&nbsp;M L Martí,&nbsp;E Valdés Quintana,&nbsp;M I Godoy,&nbsp;M A Morano,&nbsp;G Palomino,&nbsp;D Fandiño,&nbsp;A Greggio","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this double-blind study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of propinox administered i.v. and to establish a dose-response relationship according to three dose levels (10 mg, 20 mg and 30 mg), vs. placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe acute intestinal colic pain. Four hundred patients (100 per treatment group) were included and allocated to the following treatment groups: propinox 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg and placebo. All treatments induced significant and progressive pain reduction as from the 20 min evaluation of 20.3% in the placebo group, 45% in the group treated with propinox 10 mg; 52% in the group receiving propinox 20 mg and 56% in the propinox 30 mg group. Statistical comparison showed differences between placebo and the three active doses as well as between propinox 10 mg and the 20 mg and 30 mg doses. The 20 min evaluation revealed that 40% of patients receiving placebo had to be excluded from the study due to lack of efficacy; the percentage of which was significantly higher compared with those observed with the three doses of propinox ranging between 10% and 13%. The 120 min evaluation revealed that 47.7% of patients treated with propinox 10 mg were free from pain vs. 68.8% and 73.5% of those receiving 20 mg and 30 mg, respectively. These percentages were considerably higher than the 15% found with placebo. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the 10 mg vs. the 20 mg and 30 mg groups with not differences between the latter doses. No differences in blood pressure or heart rate were found among treatments. The incidence of mouth dryness was significantly more frequent with the 20 mg and 30 mg doses of propinox than with the placebo or the 10 mg dose.</p>","PeriodicalId":13940,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical pharmacology research","volume":"20 1-2","pages":"31-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Propinox in intestinal colic: multicenter randomized prospective double-blind study of three doses of propinox vs. placebo in acute intestinal colic pain.\",\"authors\":\"G Di Girolamo,&nbsp;A R de los Santos,&nbsp;M L Martí,&nbsp;E Valdés Quintana,&nbsp;M I Godoy,&nbsp;M A Morano,&nbsp;G Palomino,&nbsp;D Fandiño,&nbsp;A Greggio\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this double-blind study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of propinox administered i.v. and to establish a dose-response relationship according to three dose levels (10 mg, 20 mg and 30 mg), vs. placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe acute intestinal colic pain. Four hundred patients (100 per treatment group) were included and allocated to the following treatment groups: propinox 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg and placebo. All treatments induced significant and progressive pain reduction as from the 20 min evaluation of 20.3% in the placebo group, 45% in the group treated with propinox 10 mg; 52% in the group receiving propinox 20 mg and 56% in the propinox 30 mg group. Statistical comparison showed differences between placebo and the three active doses as well as between propinox 10 mg and the 20 mg and 30 mg doses. The 20 min evaluation revealed that 40% of patients receiving placebo had to be excluded from the study due to lack of efficacy; the percentage of which was significantly higher compared with those observed with the three doses of propinox ranging between 10% and 13%. The 120 min evaluation revealed that 47.7% of patients treated with propinox 10 mg were free from pain vs. 68.8% and 73.5% of those receiving 20 mg and 30 mg, respectively. These percentages were considerably higher than the 15% found with placebo. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the 10 mg vs. the 20 mg and 30 mg groups with not differences between the latter doses. No differences in blood pressure or heart rate were found among treatments. The incidence of mouth dryness was significantly more frequent with the 20 mg and 30 mg doses of propinox than with the placebo or the 10 mg dose.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of clinical pharmacology research\",\"volume\":\"20 1-2\",\"pages\":\"31-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"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

本双盲研究的目的是评估丙炔诺静脉注射的疗效和耐受性,并根据三种剂量水平(10mg, 20mg和30mg)与安慰剂在中重度急性肠绞痛患者中的剂量-反应关系。400名患者(每个治疗组100名)被纳入并分配到以下治疗组:丙醇10mg, 20mg, 30mg和安慰剂。从20分钟评估开始,所有治疗均诱导显著和进行性疼痛减轻,安慰剂组为20.3%,丙醇10mg组为45%;丙醇20 mg组为52%,丙醇30 mg组为56%。统计比较显示安慰剂和三种活性剂量之间的差异,以及丙醇10毫克和20毫克和30毫克剂量之间的差异。20分钟评估显示,40%接受安慰剂治疗的患者因缺乏疗效而被排除在研究之外;这一比例明显高于丙炔醇三剂的10%至13%。120分钟的评估显示,47.7%的丙醇10mg治疗的患者没有疼痛,而接受20mg和30mg治疗的患者分别为68.8%和73.5%。这些百分比明显高于安慰剂组的15%。统计分析显示,10毫克组与20毫克组和30毫克组之间存在显著差异,后一种剂量之间没有差异。不同的治疗方法在血压和心率方面没有发现差异。服用20毫克和30毫克丙炔醇的患者比服用安慰剂或10毫克剂量的患者口腔干燥的发生率明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Propinox in intestinal colic: multicenter randomized prospective double-blind study of three doses of propinox vs. placebo in acute intestinal colic pain.

The aim of this double-blind study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of propinox administered i.v. and to establish a dose-response relationship according to three dose levels (10 mg, 20 mg and 30 mg), vs. placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe acute intestinal colic pain. Four hundred patients (100 per treatment group) were included and allocated to the following treatment groups: propinox 10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg and placebo. All treatments induced significant and progressive pain reduction as from the 20 min evaluation of 20.3% in the placebo group, 45% in the group treated with propinox 10 mg; 52% in the group receiving propinox 20 mg and 56% in the propinox 30 mg group. Statistical comparison showed differences between placebo and the three active doses as well as between propinox 10 mg and the 20 mg and 30 mg doses. The 20 min evaluation revealed that 40% of patients receiving placebo had to be excluded from the study due to lack of efficacy; the percentage of which was significantly higher compared with those observed with the three doses of propinox ranging between 10% and 13%. The 120 min evaluation revealed that 47.7% of patients treated with propinox 10 mg were free from pain vs. 68.8% and 73.5% of those receiving 20 mg and 30 mg, respectively. These percentages were considerably higher than the 15% found with placebo. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the 10 mg vs. the 20 mg and 30 mg groups with not differences between the latter doses. No differences in blood pressure or heart rate were found among treatments. The incidence of mouth dryness was significantly more frequent with the 20 mg and 30 mg doses of propinox than with the placebo or the 10 mg dose.

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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信