Ginsberg F, Bourguignon R P, Smets P, Famaey J P
Curr Med Res Opin. 1983;8(8):562-9. doi: 10.1185/03007998309109799.
A double-blind study was carried out in 42 patients suffering from acute rheumatic pain to compare the analgesic effectiveness and tolerance of tiapride with that of glafenine, a widely used analgesic in Europe. Patients were allocated at random to receive either 100 mg tiapride or 200 mg glafenine 3-times daily over a period of 14 days. Pain intensity was rated daily by the patients using a visual analogue scale and an overall assessment of response to treatment was made by both patients and physician at the end of the study. The results showed that, whilst both treatments resulted in a marked reduction in mean pain scores, pain disappeared completely in 16 (76%) of the 21 patients treated with tiapride compared with 9 (43%) of the 21 receiving glafenine. There was also a significant difference in favour of tiapride in the physician's overall assessment of response which was considered as excellent in 71% of the patients on tiapride compared with 31% receiving glafenine. Both treatments were well tolerated and few side-effects were reported. Drowsiness occurred in 6 patients on tiapride but this was only mild in 5 and moderate in the other patient.
对42例急性风湿性疼痛患者进行了一项双盲研究，以比较硫必利与格拉非宁（欧洲广泛使用的一种镇痛药）的镇痛效果和耐受性。患者被随机分配，在14天内每天3次服用100毫克硫必利或200毫克格拉非宁。患者每天使用视觉模拟量表对疼痛强度进行评分，并在研究结束时由患者和医生对治疗反应进行总体评估。结果显示，虽然两种治疗均使平均疼痛评分显著降低，但在接受硫必利治疗的21例患者中，有16例（76%）疼痛完全消失，而在接受格拉非宁治疗的21例患者中，只有9例（43%）疼痛完全消失。在医生对反应的总体评估中，硫必利也有显著优势，71%接受硫必利治疗的患者被认为反应极佳，而接受格拉非宁治疗的患者这一比例为31%。两种治疗的耐受性都很好，报告的副作用很少。6例服用硫必利的患者出现嗜睡，但其中5例仅为轻度，另1例为中度。
