Double-blind crossover study of XXXX versus @entity1623 in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

@entity1 @entity2852 @entity117 @entity1623 @entity158
Twenty-one @entity1 entered a double-blind crossover study to compare @entity2852 with @entity1623 . After a 1-week run-in period using a coated @entity117 preparation, ten @entity1 received @entity2852 (1 g at night) over a period of 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks on @entity1623 (250 mg b.i.d), while eleven @entity1 received the same treatments in the reverse order. Morning stiffness, @entity158 and night @entity158 showed no significant difference after either treatment. A wide range of objective measurements were made relating to the hips, knees, and cervical and lumbar spine. No statistically significant differences were observed in the relatively small number of @entity1 involved. Both treatments, however, appeared to produce a similar improvement in the @entity1 . The physician's assessment showed that improvement occurred in a majority of the @entity1 over the total trial period. Both drugs were considered to be equally effective and were both well tolerated. There was no special @entity1 preference for either the first or second treatment. A total of eight @entity1 reported side-effects, three during @entity1623 alone, three during both treatments, and two during the run-in period. In terms of tolerance, fifteen @entity1 had no drug preference, six preferred @entity2852 , none preferred @entity1623 . No evidence was found of changes in renal, hepatic or haematopoietic function with the two drugs tested.
