Double‐blind multicentre UK hospital studies of isoxicam vs naproxen.

1Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

1 Two multicentre, parallel group, randomised, double‐blind, double‐ dummy comparison studies were conducted between isoxicam in the usual dose of 200 mg once daily and naproxen 500 mg twice daily. 2 The drugs were administered for 4 weeks to 230 patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee in the first trial and to 249 patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis in the second. 3 The studies compared treatments for both safety and overall effectiveness in the relief of pain. 4 In the osteoarthritis trial, overall pain was reduced by both drugs after 2 weeks of therapy but only isoxicam produced further improvement after 4 weeks. 5 Isoxicam produced reductions comparable to those produced by naproxen in pain on standing from the sitting position, pain on walking, and pain on movement of the affected joint, after 2 and 4 weeks. 6 After 4 weeks, isoxicam given once daily in the morning was significantly more effective than naproxen given in the morning and the evening in relieving not only total pain as assessed by a visual analogue scale but, as importantly, night pain. 7 Compared to naproxen therapy, isoxicam therapy was associated with significantly more patients whose disease state was improved at 2 weeks, as assessed by physicians. 8 In the rheumatoid arthritis trial, isoxicam was equally as effective as naproxen in reducing joint tenderness, joint swelling, and pain; at 4 weeks there was a trend in favour of isoxicam in reduction of joint swelling and pain. 9 Isoxicam reduced morning stiffness significantly more than naproxen after 4 weeks; this trend was apparent at 2 weeks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) 1986 The British Pharmacological Society

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cardoe, N., & Hart, F. (1986). Double‐blind multicentre UK hospital studies of isoxicam vs naproxen. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 22(2 S), 167S-172S. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1986.tb03000.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free