A multiple-dose comparison of ketorolac tromethamine with diflunisal and placebo in postmeniscectomy pain

The efficacy of oral ketorolac 5 mg and 10 mg taken qid was compared in a randomized double-blind study with that of oral diflunisal 500 mg bid (interleaved with placebo twice daily) and of placebo, in 120 patients suffering at least moderate pain following meniscectomy. The trial comprised two phases: (1) an acute phase (the first postoperative day) and (2) a chronic phase (days 2-5 postoperatively). Acutely, pain was assessed before drug administration, and then 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 9.0 hours after the first dose. The second of the four daily doses was administered at four hours after the first dose. During the chronic phase, pain was assessed using visual analogue scales at 8 AM and 4 PM daily. The acute phase results show that all the active treatments were statistically significantly superior to placebo but were not distinguished from each other. Over the chronic phase, ketorolac 5 mg and placebo showed similar results, with diflunisal showing the least pain relief and ketorolac 10 mg the most. All the active treatments showed a low incidence of side effects and, in an overall evaluation, no one treatment was distinguishable. Ketorolac would seem to be an acceptable therapy for acute postoperative pain.     

Diflunisal in the treatment of osteoarthrosis: a double-blind study comparing diflunisal with ibuprofen.

A double-blind trial was carried out in 37 patients with osteoarthrosis to compare the efficacy and tolerance of 250 mg diflunisal twice daily with that of 400 mg ibuprofen 3-times daily over an 8-week period. Rating scale assessments were made, at the end of a preceding 1-week, wash-out period on placebo and at regular fixed intervals, of weight-bearing pain, night pain, a specific functional activity, and of the duration of inactivity stiffness. Patients' and physician's overall evaluations of response, taking side-effects into account, were made on completion of the study. The data collected indicated that in 30 patients completing the trial both treatments produced similar overall results and, with the exception of weight-bearing pain which appeared to be improved more in the ibuprofen group, diflunisal provided equal therapeutic benefit with fewer side-effects.     

Diflunisal in the treatment of osteoarthrosis: a double-blind study comparing diflunisal with ibuprofen

Summary

A double-blind trial was carried out in 37 patients with osteoarthrosis to compare the efficacy and tolerance of 250?mg diflunisal twice daily with that of 400?mg ibuprofen 3-times daily over an 8-week period. Rating scale assessments were made, at the end of a preceding 1-week wash-out period on placebo and at regular fixed intervals, of weight-bearing pain, night pain, a specific functional activity, and of the duration of inactivity stiffness. Patients' and physician's overall evaluations of response, taking side-effects into account, were made on completion of the study. The data collected indicated that in 30 patients completing the trial both treatments produced similar overall results and, with the exception of weight-bearing pain which appeared to be improved more in the ibuprofen group, diflunisal provided equal therapeutic benefit with fewer side-effects.     

Diflunisal compared with naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthrosis of hip or knee: a double-blind trial.

A randomized double-blind trial was carried out in 20 patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip or knee to compare the efficacy and tolerance of treatment with diflunisal or naproxen. During the first 4 weeks, patients received either 250 mg diflunisal or 250 mg naproxen twice daily and this was increased by 250 mg daily in 5 patients on diflunisal and in 3 on naproxen for the second 4 weeks of the trial. The results of subjective assessments made before and at the end of Week 8 showed a trend in favour of diflunisal for improvement of symptoms, except for weight-bearing pain which was improved in only 1 patient in each group. More of the patients receiving diflunisal than naproxen considered treatment to have been satisfactory, and rated their response as equally as good as or better than previous medication. Diflunisal produced significantly high incidence of gastro-intestinal upsets, leading to the withdrawal of 2 patients at Week 4.     

The use of diflunisal in post-operative pain: a report of double-blind comparative trials in patients after meniscectomy.

A series of double-blind randomized trials was carried out in patients suffering from moderate to severe pain after meniscectomy to assess the analgesic effectiveness of diflunisal. In a single-dose study, 150 patients received either diflunisal (125 mg, 250 mg or 500 mg), aspirin (600 mg), or placebo, and hourly assessments were made of pain severity over an 8-hour period. The results showed that 500 mg diflunisal produced comparable relief to aspirin within 3 to 4 hours, but the analgesic effect continued for longer and was still very marked after 8 hours. A multi-dose study in 120 patients receiving doses of diflunisal (375 mg or 500 mg) or placebo confirmed the overall effectiveness of twice daily treatment with diflunisal. In a comparative study against oxyphenbutazone (200 mg t.i.d.), hourly pain scores made on the first post-operative day showed that a single dose of 500 mg diflunisal produced comparable relief over a 12-hour period to that with 2 doses of 200 mg oxyphenbutazone. Overall response to multiple doses was assessed as excellent or good by all the patients receiving diflunisal. Preliminary results are reported on the use of diflunisal in other painful conditions.     

Diflunisal in the management of sprains.

A double-blind randomized trial was carried out in 31 patients suffering from acute, minor ligamentous injuries to compare the efficacy of diflunisal in the relief of pain with that of oxyphenbutazone. Patients received either 500 mg diflunisal twice daily or 200 mg oxyphenbutazone 3-times daily for 3 days. The results of subjective assessments showed tha by Day 3 spontaneous pain had either completely resolved or markedly improved in all patients, and that diflunisal was significantly better than oxyphenbutazone on Days 1 and 3 in relieving pain on movement of the joint.     

The use of diflunisal in post-operative pain: a report of double-blind Comparative trials in patients after meniscectomy

Summary

A series of double-blind randomized trials was carried out in patients suffering from moderate to severe pain after meniscectomy to assess the analgesic effectiveness of diflunisal. In a single-dose study, 150 patients received either diflunisal (125?mg, 250?mg or 500?mg), aspirin (600?mg), or placebo, and hourly assessments were made of pain severity over an 8-hour period. The results showed that 500?mg diflunisal produced comparable relief to aspirin within 3 to 4 hours, but the analgesic effect continued for longer and was still very marked after 8 hours. A multi-dose study in 120 patients receiving doses of diflunisal (375?mg or 500?mg) or placebo confirmed the overall effectiveness of twice daily treatment with diflunisal. In a comparative study against oxyphenbutazone (200?mg t.i.d.), hourly pain scores made on the first postoperative day showed that a single dose of 500?mg diflunisal produced comparable relief over a 12-hour period to that with 2 doses of 200?mg oxyphenbutazone. Overall response to multiple doses was assessed as excellent or good by all the patients receiving diflunisal. Preliminary results are reported on the use of diflunisal in other painful conditions.     

Diflunisal compared with naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthrosis of hip or knee: a double-blind trial

Summary

A randomized double-blind trial was carried out in 20 patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip or knee to compare the efficacy and tolerance of treatment with diflunisal or naproxen. During the first 4 weeks, patients received either 250?mg diflunisal or 250?mg naproxen twice daily and this was increased by 250?mg daily in 5 patients on diflunisal and in 3 on naproxen for the second 4 weeks of the trial. The results of subjective assessments made before and at the end of Week 8 showed a trend in favour of diflunisal for improvement of symptoms, except for weight-bearing pain which was improved in only 1 patient in each group. More of the patients receiving diflunisal than naproxen considered treatment to have been satisfactory, and rated their response as equally as good as or better than previous medication. Diflunisal produced significantly fewer side-effects than naproxen, the use of which was associated with a relatively high incidence of gastro-intestinal upsets, leading to the withdrawal of 2 patients at Week 4.     

Diflunisal in the management of sprains

Summary

A double-blind randomized trial was carried out in 31 patients suffering from acute, minor ligamentous injuries to compare the efficacy of diflunisal in the relief of pain with that of oxyphenbutazone. Patients received either 500?mg diflunisal twice daily or 200?mg oxyphenbutazone 3-times daily for 3 days. The results of subjective assessments showed that by Day 3 spontaneous pain had either completely resolved or markedly improved in all patients, and that diflunisal was significantly better than oxyphenbutazone on Days 1 and 3 in relieving pain on movement of the joint.     

A double-blind comparison of diflunisal and aspirin in the treatment of post-operative pain after episiotomy.

A double-blind randomized trial was carried out in 161 primiparous women suffering from moderate to severe post-episiotomy pain to compare the analgesic efficacy of single doses of diflunisal (125 mg, 250 mg, of 500 mg), aspirin (600 mg), and placebo. The results of pain rating assessments made before and at hourly intervals after drug administration showed that both the active drugs were more effective than placebo and produced similar pain relief over the first 4 hours. The analgesic efficacy of aspirin tailed off after 4 hours but pain relief with 500 mg diflunisal was still evident after 8 hours. Over 65% of patients in the diflunisal group had effective relief of pain at 8 hours whereas there was no significant difference between the aspirin and placebo-treated groups by the seventh and eighth hour.     

A double-blind comparison of diflunisal and aspirin in the treatment of post-operative pain after episiotomy

Summary

A double-blind randomized trial was carried out in 161 primiparous women suffering from moderate to severe post-episiotomy pain to compare the analgesic efficacy of single doses of diflunisal (125?mg, 250?mg, or 500?mg), aspirin (600?mg), and placebo. The results of pain rating assessments made before and at hourly intervals after drug administration showed that both the active drugs were more effective than placebo and produced similar pain relief over the first 4 hours. The analgesic efficacy of aspirin tailed off after 4 hours but pain relief with 500?mg diflunisal was still evident after 8 hours. Over 65% of patients in the diflunisal group had effective relief of pain at 8 hours whereas there was no significant difference between the aspirin and placebo-treated groups by the seventh and eighth hour.     

Double-blind parallel study of meptazinol versus diflunisal in the treatment of lumbago

Summary

Seventy out-patients with acute back pain participated in a double-blind comparative trial of the clinical efficacy and tolerance of orally administered meptazinol and diflunisal. Half of the patients received 200?mg meptazinol or 250?mg diflunisal 4-times daily for up to 3 weeks, depending on the duration of pain. Patients were examined 4 times at 1-week intervals for their capability to do daily tasks, for their capacity for forward bending, thoraco-lumbar torsion, straight leg raising, static hip flexion and sit-ups, and for subjective assessment of pain. Side-effects were recorded on a questionnaire. Both treatments produced marked improvement in most of the parameters assessed, often within the first week and, overall, the results were similar with the two drugs. Few side-effects were reported and those that were recorded were slight and similar in incidence apart from nausea in 5 meptazinol-treated patients and smarting and burning on urination in 2 patients receiving diflunisal.     

The analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of diflunisal and codeine after removal of impacted third molars.

A double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in 90 patients to compare the analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of 500 mg diflunisal twice daily with that of 25 mg codeine phosphate 4-times daily and placebo in relieving pain and swelling after surgical removal of impacted third molars. Diflunisal was found to be superior to codeine and placebo on the first post-operative day, but the difference in efficacy of the drugs had diminished by the third post-operative day. In the diflunisal group of 30 patients, 10 (33%) developed 'dry socket' or alveolitis sicca dolorosa. Only 2 patients in the codeine group and 1 patient in the placebo group developed this very painful condition. The possible explanation of 'dry socket' is discussed.     

The analgesic and anti- inflammatory efficacy of diflunisal and Codeine after removal of impacted third molars

Summary

A double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in 90 patients to compare the analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of 500?mg diflunisal twice daily with that of 25?mg codeine phosphate 4-times daily and of placebo in relieving pain and swelling after surgical removal of impacted third molars. Diflunisal was found to be superior to codeine and placebo on the first post-operative day, but the difference in efficacy of the drugs had diminished by the third post-operative day. In the diflunisal group of 30 patients, 10 (33%) developed ‘dry socket’ or alveolitis sicca dolorosa. Only 2 patients in the codeine group and 1 patient in the placebo group developed this very painful condition. The possible explanation of ‘dry socket’ is discussed.     

The pain intensity at analgesic intake, and the efficacy of diflunisal in single doses and effervescent acetaminophen in single and repeated doses

A double-blind, randomized analgesic trial was carried out in 150 patients undergoing surgical removal of their 2 impacted lower wisdom teeth. The analgesic efficacy of effervescent acetaminophen 500 or 1000 mg in a 2-dose regimen was compared with that of diflunisal 500 mg in a single dose. Each dose was taken when subjectively needed and the pain intensity was measured on a visual analog scale during the 10-hour period after first medication. The best pain reduction was achieved with diflunisal. The difference between diflunisal 500 mg and acetaminophen 1000 mg was significant, as was that between acetaminophen 1000 and 500 mg. The peak effect after the first dose occurred later but was greater with diflunisal than with acetaminophen. Patients needing analgesics at low pain intensities seemed to discriminate better between treatments, and the efficacy of acetaminophen was weakly dependent on the initial pain intensity. This intensity was difficult to predict, and only a poor correlation was found between the initial pain intensity and the patient's prior estimate of this.     

A controlled study of diflunisal in Sprains and Strains

Summary

A preliminary double-blind, randomized trial was carried out in general practice to compare the efficacy of treatment with diflunisal (500?mg) twice daily and a combination of dextropropoxyphene (65?mg) plus paracetamol (650?mg) 3-times daily for 3 days in relieving pain associated with strains and sprains. Analysis of the results from 51 patients showed that both treatments were equally effective in relieving spontaneous pain and pain on movement after 1 and 3 days, and there were no differences between the two groups in patients' overall evaluation of treatment or physicians' assessment of therapeutic response. Both treatments were well tolerated during the short-term period of the trial.     

Diflunisal in general practice

Summary

A large-scale, double-blind comparative study was carried out in general practice to assess the relative efficacy and tolerance of diflunisal and aspirin in patients suffering from acute painful conditions such as sprains and strains, osteoarthritis, etc. Patients received either 250?mg or 500?mg diflunisal twice daily, or 600?mg aspirin 4-times daily for 5 days. The results of subjective assessments of pain relief from the daily records of 1902 patients (967 on diflunisal, 935 on aspirin), and the overall assessment of response by both doctors and patients, showed that diflunisal was significantly better than aspirin. Gastric side-effects were more common and more severe in patients receiving aspirin, and more often led to withdrawal of treatment.     

A double-blind comparison of nefopam and placebo in post-operative pain.

Nefopam (90 mg), an analgesic, was compared with placebo in a double-blind trial in patients who had undergone total abdominal hysterectomy operations. Analgesic activity was assessed by patients rating their pain before and 1 hour after administration of each treatment, by sequential analysis of patient and observer preference for treatment, and by calculation of the time interval between doses of the two treatments. Nefopam was found by observer preference to be significantly better than placebo in relieving post-operative pain. In patients with severe initial pain, the time between doses after nefopam was significantly longer than after placebo.     

Medical treatment of acute low back pain. Diflunisal compared with indomethacin in acute lumbago

Diflunisal and indomethacin were compared in patients with acute lumbago in a double-blind prospective clinical trial. The dosage of diflunisal was 500 mg twice daily (d-group) and the dosage of indomethacin 50 mg three times daily (i-group). Out of 133 patients, 66 were in the d-group and 67 in the i-group. They were followed up for a week. In addition to the patient's own daily evaluation of pain and functional disability, control visits were performed by the investigators on days 0, 3 and 7. Both of the test drugs were effective in the dosages used. Patients' pain was decreased, functional disability was improved and patients' subjective evaluation of treatment efficacy was very similar to that of the investigators. There were no differences as to the treatment efficacy, but reports of side-effects were slightly less (p less than 0.05) in the d-group than in the i-group. If patients who had no side-effects were compared, the efficacy of diflunisal was better than indomethacin (p less than 0.05). It can be said that indomethacin was essentially as effective as diflunisal, but at the expense of an increased frequency of side-effects. In the d-group two patients (3%) and in i-group six patients (9%) discontinued the therapy because of side-effects. In acute lumbago rapid relief of pain and other harmful symptoms hastens improvement. For such indications the choice of drug therapy in general practice should be based in particular on considerations of safety and lack of potential side-effects in addition to efficacy.