SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “randomized crossover trial”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 919 records · Page 51Linked to original sources

PubMed1980

Double-blind crossover trial of oral meptazinol, pentazocine and placebo in the treatment of pain in the elderly.

In a randomized, double-blind crossover trial in 30 elderly patients suffering from moderate to severe pain, the analgesic efficacy, tendency to produce mental confusion and side effect profile of meptazinol 100 mg orally were compared with those of pentazocine 25 mg orally were compared with those of pentazocine 25 mg orally and placebo. Both the active drugs produced significantly better analgesia than placebo but meptazinol also provided significantly better pain relief than pentazocine, whilst at the same time causing less mental confusion. Side effects were unremarkable. Meptazinol appears to be a better general purpose oral analgesic in this group of patients than pentazocine.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

Hood versus mask nebulization in infants with evolving bronchopulmonary dysplasia in the neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare infants' discomfort, nursing-time and caregiver preference, and assess the clinical efficiency (as a secondary outcome) of hood versus facemask nebulization in infants with evolving bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in the neonatal intensive care unit. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, open, randomized, controlled crossover clinical trial. In total, 10 infants with BPD who were on inhaled beta-agonist bronchodilators and corticosteroids were randomly assigned to receive their nebulized treatments either by a facemask, or by a hood for 2-3 days, and then crossover to receive the same treatments with the other technique for another 2-3 days. Infants' discomfort, nursing-time, caregiver preference and clinical efficiency were compared. RESULTS: At baseline there was no significant clinical difference between the groups. Nurse-time required for administering the hood nebulization (mean+/-s.e.m.: 1.9+/-0.1 min) was significantly shorter than the time for mask nebulization (12.0+/-0.6 min, P<0.0001). Infants' discomfort score was significantly lower (0.1+/-0.04) for hood versus mask nebulization (2.5+/-0.2, P<0.0001). Nurses and parents unequivocally preferred the hood treatment. During both mask and hood nebulization therapies (2-3 days) clinical efficiency was comparable. While both methods caused an immediate (20 min post) clinical improvement, the immediate respiratory assessment change score was significantly greater for the hood versus the mask nebulization (0.62+/-0.27 versus 0.13+/-0.14, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nebulization of aerosolized medications in infants with evolving BPD by hood was less time-consuming for caregivers and was much better tolerated by the infants while being at least as effective as the conventional facemask nebulization.

Administration, Inhalation↗

PubMed2004

Analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials in emergency medicine.

In an AB/BA crossover trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive either treastment A in the first period followed by treatment B in the second period or treatment B in the first period followed by treatment A in the second period. The crossover trial allows for a within-patient comparison between treatments because each patient serves as his or her own control subject, removes the interpatient variability from the comparison between treatments, and can provide unbiased estimates for the differences between treatments. When applied inappropriately, crossover designs have serious problems that might adversely influence and invalidate their results. The primary concern is the residual carryover effect of a treatment in subsequent treatment periods. Rather than depending on a statistical procedure to eliminate the possibility of the presence of carryover effects, it is more important that the crossover design be used only in those situations in which the likelihood of a carryover effect is exceptionally small. Even though the AB/BA crossover trial appeals to the physician researcher, it is surprisingly difficult to take advantage of this design. The primary objective of this article is to introduce readers and trialists to some of the issues surrounding crossover trials. Researchers who use this design should explicitly examine the assumptions about crossover effects and the adequacy of the lead-in washout period and the between-period washout period and clearly indicate that the results of the study are conditional on the acceptance of those conditions.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed1988

A comparative analysis of two dosing strategies of flurbiprofen in rheumatoid arthritis: an application of sequential trial design.

Forty patients with classic or definite rheumatoid arthritis were entered into a double-blind, randomized, multiple crossover, sequential trial comparing two doses (300 mg vs 150 mg per day) and two dosing schedules (b.i.d. vs t.i.d.) of flurbiprofen. Clinical assessments (Ritchie Index, grip strength, walking time, physician and patient global assessments) were made at baseline and at biweekly intervals during the next six weeks of active treatment. Overall there were no statistically significant differences either between the two dosage levels or the dosing schedules. This study demonstrates the utility of the sequential trial design in assessing drug efficacy. The data confirm a lack of difference between the two doses of flurbiprofen selected and suggest that twice-daily dosing with flurbiprofen is similar in efficacy to thrice-daily dosing.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1988

A crossover trial of bromocriptine in the treatment of vascular dementia.

Seven patients with vascular dementia completed an 8-month randomized double-blind crossover trial of bromocriptine in a dosage of up to 30 mg per day. Patients were assessed using a modified UCLA Parkinson Rating Scale of symptoms and signs, and neuropsychological testing including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, Wechsler Memory Scale, modified Thurstone Word Fluency Test, Wisconsin Card Sort, a test of visual vigilance, and a reaction time task. Subjects failed to perform significantly better on any measure while on bromocriptine, and on several measures their performance while on the drug was worse.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Creatine supplementation for weak muscles in persons with chronic tetraplegia: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Creatine supplementation improves muscle strength in some patient populations with neurologic disorders. The purpose of this study was to determine whether creatine supplementation improves muscle strength and endurance in weak upper limb muscles in persons with tetraplegia, and whether it improves function. METHODS: Outpatients with tetraplegia and mild wrist extensor weakness were randomized to receive either creatine or placebo in a double-blind crossover design. During creatine supplementation, participants were loaded with 10 g orally twice per day for 6 days, then maintained on 5 g daily until undergoing testing. Main outcome measures, performed at baseline, after placebo, and after creatine supplementation, included maximal voluntary wrist extensor isometric contraction strength (MVC), endurance times for 5 submaximal wrist extensor contractions, and the Grasp and Release Test for hand function. RESULTS: Eight individuals (7 men, 1 woman) with tetraplegia met inclusion criteria and completed all study phases. The mean age of participants was 48 years, and 7 of 8 had C6 motor level injuries. There were no significant differences in MVC, endurance times, or hand function for creatine vs placebo. CONCLUSION: Creatine does not improve MVC and endurance of weak wrist extensors and does not improve hand function in individuals with tetraplegia.

Cervical Vertebrae↗

PubMed2004

Shock on T versus direct current voltage for induction of ventricular fibrillation: a randomized prospective comparison.

VF is induced during ICD implantation to determine efficacy of therapy. Establishing the best clinical method of induction of VF would potentially be beneficial in reducing the number of induction attempts and reducing the frequency of inadvertent induction of VT. Commonly used methods to induce VF include shock in the T wave vulnerable period (T shock) and high frequency stimulation. This study compared the efficacy of T shock with a new induction method using a 9-V DC pulse. The study was a randomized, prospective, case crossover trial in patients receiving ICDs. VF was induced by T shock and DC in a randomized sequence during an ICD implant. VF was induced at least four times in each patient (two T shocks and two DC inductions) and with each induction; attempts were continued with modifications until successful. A paired evaluation between the T shock/DC induction was performed in 37 patients (28 men, age 64 +/- 12 years) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 +/- 0.20. Arrhythmia indications were VT (n = 23), VF (n = 10), and VT/VF (n = 4). Drug therapy included amiodarone (n = 10), metoprolol (n = 6), digoxin (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1). The average T shock voltage was 207.0 +/- 16.1 V. The S1 cycle drive length was consistently 400 ms, and the mean S2 coupling interval was 317.8 +/- 19.6 ms. The length of time DC applied averaged 3.8 +/- 1.4 seconds. A total of 148 episodes of VF were included in the analysis. T shock induced VF with a cycle length of 213.5 +/- 35.1 ms, and DC induced VF with a cycle length of 214.6 +/- 34.5 ms (P = 0.86). Although VF was eventually induced for each randomization, the number of attempts required were dependent on the method of induction. The successful DC first attempt VF induction rate was 96%, with three patients requiring two attempts during one of the DC inductions. T shock had a 68% first attempt success rate with 21 patients requiring multiple T shocks to induce VF. All nine female patients had at least one unsuccessful first attempt T shock, which contributed to an overall unsuccessful first attempt induction rate significantly higher in women then men (36.1% vs 12.5%, P = 0.001). A constant DC voltage induction of VF may be more effective than T shock for induction of VF in a clinical setting because it reduces the number of attempts required to induce VF. By either method, VF appears to be more difficult to induce in women. DC induction has the advantage of simple programming of only duration of stimulation. These findings have implications particularly for ICD implantation with conscious sedation.

Amiodarone↗

PubMed1998

Insulin sensitivity in a long-term crossover trial with celiprolol and other antihypertensive agents.

The effects of a vasodilating beta-blocker, celiprolol, on insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular risk factors were compared with those of another beta1-selective adrenoceptor blocker, calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. A randomized 21-month crossover trial was carried out with 25 patients with dyslipidemia receiving antihypertensive monotherapy. The study consisted of a 3-month active run-in period and two treatment periods, during which the patients received celiprolol (200-400 mg daily) or the control drug for 12 and 6 months in a crossover manner. A hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp and an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were performed every 6 months. According to the clamp tests, the insulin-sensitivity index increased on average by 32% (p < 0.0001) during celiprolol treatment compared with that with the other antihypertensive agents, including ACE inhibitors. In OGTT, area under the incremental glucose curve decreased by 36% (p = 0.002) during celiprolol treatment, whereas insulin secretion diminished on average by 26% (p = 0.006). The mean decrease in fasting serum triglycerides was 11% (NS), whereas the high-density lipoprotein to low-density lipoprotein (HDL/LDL) ratio increased by 15% (p = 0.012). The results suggest that celiprolol improves insulin sensitivity of hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia in long-term therapy.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of pirenzepine in patients with gastroesophageal reflux.

A muscarinic receptor subtype 1 (M1) antagonist, pirenzepine, recently has been shown to be relatively free of the usual anticholinergic side effects on esophageal smooth muscle and thus has been implicated for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the effect of pirenzepine on GERD remains to be defined. Thirteen patients who demonstrated GERD in a baseline 24-hr ambulatory intraesophageal pH monitoring study were randomized in a double-blind crossover fashion to receive pirenzepine and placebo. An ambulatory 24-hr intraesophageal pH monitor was used to assess reduction in reflux (esophageal pH less than 4.0) with respect to position (upright vs supine), to total number of reflux episodes, and to episodes greater than 5 min. A significant effect for pirenzepine was seen for episodes greater than 5 min (t = 2.61, P = 0.023) and a trend towards significance was seen for total (upright and supine positions combined) percent time of reflux (t = 2.13, P = 0.055). Although not statistically significant, pirenzepine consistently showed greater reduction in all parameters of reflux tested. A greater reduction in percent time of reflux in supine vs upright positions (pirenzepine: 58.9% vs 21.4%; placebo: 43.6% vs 7.3%) may be clinically important in prevention of esophageal injury due to reflux in the recumbent position. Pirenzepine may provide a unique alternative for some GERD patients who may be refractory to other therapies of GERD.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

The hemodynamic effect of calcium ion concentration in the infusate during predilution hemofiltration in chronic renal failure.

BACKGROUND: It is the prevailing view that convective dialysis techniques stabilize blood pressure. Calcium concentration in the substitution fluid may be important in this respect. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of calcium ion concentration in the substitution fluid on hemodynamic stability during predilution hemofiltration (HF). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, crossover, blinded, controlled trial with 12 stable long-term hemodialysis patients without diabetes. Each patient was randomly assigned to substitution fluid with a calcium ion (iCa) concentration of 2.5 mEq/L (1.25 mmol/L; low-calcium session [L-HF]) or 3.5 mEq/L (1.75 mmol/L; high-calcium session [H-HF]) during 4.5 hours of predilution HF with a volume of 1.24 +/- 0.09 L/kg dry body weight and a temperature of 37 degrees C. Ultrafiltration was kept constant in each patient. Blood pressure (mean, systolic [SBP], and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]), pulse rate, arterial and venous temperature, energy transfer, and relative blood volume were measured at 15-minute intervals. Cardiac output, total peripheral resistance, stroke volume, and iCa were measured hourly. The 2 treatments were matched with the exception of iCa concentration. RESULTS: A significant intratreatment reduction in cardiac output and stroke volume was shown to the same extent for both groups. Intertreatment comparisons showed a significantly lower mean arterial pressure, SBP, DBP, and total peripheral resistance in the L-HF compared with the H-HF group. CONCLUSION: iCa concentration of 3.5 versus 2.5. mEq/L (1.75 versus 1.25 mmol/L) in the infusate during predilution HF stabilized blood pressure, possibly because of greater peripheral resistance rather than through changes in cardiac performance.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Lidocaine as a diluent for administration of benzathine penicillin G.

OBJECTIVE: Benzathine penicillin G is recommended for secondary prophylaxis of rheumatic fever. Its main disadvantage is local pain and discomfort associated with the injection. Lidocaine as a diluent may reduce this discomfort. We compared the administration of benzathine penicillin G with two diluents; sterile water and lidocaine hydrochloride 1% for penicillin concentrations and pain of injection. DESIGN: In a randomized double blind, crossover trial, 18 children ages 11 to 19 years who required prophylactic treatment for rheumatic fever were randomly divided into two groups. One received an injection of benzathine penicillin G diluted with 3.2 ml of sterile water, followed 1 month later by an injection of benzathine penicillin G diluted in lidocaine hydrochloride 1%; the second group received the same regimen in the reverse order. Serum penicillin concentrations and subjective pain sensation were determined after each injection. RESULTS: Peak serum penicillin concentrations at 24 h after injection were similar for both preparations (0.100 microg/ml for water, 0.102 microg/ml for lidocaine), as were the other serum values measured throughout the month. After 28 days detectable concentrations (> or =0.020 microg/ml) were found in 44 and 291% of the subjects, respectively (P = 0.4). Urine penicillin concentrations on Day 28 were 1.81 +/- 0.25 and 2.31 +/- 0.25 microg/ml, respectively. The pain score immediately after the injection was significantly lower with the lidocaine than with the sterile water dilution. CONCLUSION: Use of lidocaine hydrochloride as a diluent for benzathine penicillin G does not change the penicillin concentration in body fluids and significantly reduces the pain of injection. We suggest the use of lidocaine hydrochloride 1% as a diluent for benzathine penicillin G.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Randomized controlled clinical trial of glargine versus ultralente insulin in the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple daily insulin injection programs are commonly accompanied by considerable glycemic variation and hypoglycemia. We conducted a randomized crossover design clinical trial to compare glargine with ultralente insulin as a basal insulin in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To determine whether the use of glargine insulin as a basal insulin would result in a comparable HbA1c and less glycemic variation and hypoglycemia than ultralente insulin, 22 individuals (aged 44 +/- 14 years [+/-SD], 55% men) with type 1 diabetes who were experienced with multiple daily insulin injections and had an HbA1c of <7.8% were randomized in a crossover design to receive either glargine or ultralente as the basal insulin for 4 months. Aspart insulin was used as the prandial insulin. Physicians providing insulin dose adjustment advice were masked to the type of basal insulin. RESULTS: Treatment with glargine resulted in lower mean HbA1c (6.82 +/- 0.13 vs. 7.02 +/- 0.13, difference: 0.2 +/- 0.08, P = 0.026), less nocturnal variability (plasma glucose 49.06 +/- 4.74 vs. 62.36 +/- 5.21 mg/dl, P = 0.04), and less hypoglycemia (24.5 +/- 2.99 vs. 31.3 +/- 4.04 events, P = 0.05), primarily due to less daytime hypoglycemia (P = 0.002). On the other hand, serious hypoglycemia and average glucose concentration measured with continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that while use of either ultralente or glargine as a basal insulin can result in excellent glycemic control, treatment with glargine is associated with slightly but significantly lower HbA1c and less nocturnal glycemic variability and hypoglycemia.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial comparing the safety and efficacy of oral sustained-release hydromorphone with immediate-release hydromorphone in patients with cancer pain. Canadian Palliative Care Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new slow-release preparation of hydromorphone (SRH) in the treatment of cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-five adult patients from three Canadian Palliative Care Centers with no evidence of mental impairment received treatment for cancer pain with an oral opioid analgesic. After informed consent was obtained, patients underwent titration to a stable dose of immediate-release hydromorphone (IRH) for 48 hours, and were then randomized to receive IRH or SRH for 5 days in a double-blind basis. During day 6, a crossover took place, and patients received the alternate drug for 5 days. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and ordinal scale (OS). Side effects were assessed using VAS. Patients and investigators made a blinded global rating of efficacy a blinded final choice between SRH and IRH. RESULTS: In 75 assessable patients, pain intensity of the VAS and OS were (mean +/- SD) 27 +/- 21 and 1.3 +/- 0.6 on IRH, versus 29 +/- 21 (P = .13) and 1.3 +/- 0.6 (P = .19) on SRH, respectively. The total number of extra doses of opioids, global rating, and final blinded choice by both patients and investigators were not significantly different between IRH and SRH. Differences in side effects were not significant. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SRH is as safe and effective as IRH in the treatment of cancer pain.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Treatment of atopic dermatitis with antihistamines: lessons from a single-patient, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-patient randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can be utilized to maintain methodologic precision in the analysis of treatment effect in individual patients. We describe the results of a single-patient RCT in a patient with atopic dermatitis and review practical considerations regarding the use of antihistamines. METHODS: Using double-blind, crossover techniques, the patient was randomly allocated to four 2-week treatment periods with the following regimens: chlorpheniramine, 8 mg twice daily; chlorpheniramine, 12 mg twice daily; terfenadine, 120 mg twice daily; and placebo (phase 1). The drug that produced superior results from phase 1 (chlorpheniramine, 8 mg) was subsequently compared with astemizole, 10 mg/d, during phase 2, consisting of four 4-week, double-blind, crossover trial periods with random allocation of study drugs. Daily symptom scores, as well as end of treatment period summary impressions by patient and investigator, were analyzed. RESULTS: In both phases, chlorpheniramine produced the most noticeable positive therapeutic effect on the patient's mild but most disturbing symptoms (pruritus and eye irritation) associated with atopic dermatitis. Drowsiness was reported with chlorpheniramine. Tolerance to this side effect, however, developed quickly. CONCLUSIONS: A single-patient RCT with different antihistamines in a patient with chronic atopic dermatitis was a useful tool in achieving a favorable balance among efficacy, toxicity, and cost of therapy.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Limited effect of consumption of uncooked (RS2) or retrograded (RS3) resistant starch on putative risk factors for colon cancer in healthy men.

To investigate whether resistant starch (RS) affects putative risk factors for colon cancer, 24 healthy men consumed a daily RS supplement for 4 wk in addition to their habitual diet in a single-blind, randomized, balanced multiple crossover trial. During the first week, all subjects consumed the control supplement containing glucose. Subsequently, each subject consumed, in random order, a supplement with RS2 (uncooked high-amylose cornstarch), RS3 (extruded and retrograded high-amylose cornstarch), and glucose, each for 1 wk. The RS2 and RS3 supplements provided 32 g RS/d. Lithium was added to the supplements to measure compliance. Feces, 24-h urine, and breath samples, as well as a 24-h food-consumption recall were obtained weekly from each subject. Compliance as measured by urinary lithium recovery was satisfactory. The mean composition of the background diet did not differ between the various supplementation periods. Breath-hydrogen excretion, stool weight, and fecal starch excretion were significantly higher during RS than during glucose supplementation, but did not differ during RS2 and RS3 supplementation. There were no significant differences in fecal dry weight, pH, or short-chain fatty acid concentrations, nor in the pH, bile acid concentrations, cytotoxicity, or osmolality of fecal water. It is concluded that in healthy men, supplementing the habitual diet for 1 wk with 32 g RS2 or RS3/d compared with glucose had no effect on putative risk factors for colon cancer, except for increasing stool weight and colonic fermentative activity. There were no significant differences between the effects of RS2 and RS3 on the indexes studied.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of modafinil in the treatment of residual excessive daytime sleepiness in the sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome.

Some patients with the sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) remain subjectively and objectively sleepy despite using effective continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. The aim of this single center study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the novel wake-promoting medication modafinil in the treatment of CPAP-resistant daytime sleepiness. Thirty sleep apneics receiving effective CPAP therapy (objective use, 6.5 +/- 1.1 h/night) received daily single doses of 400 mg modafinil or placebo for 2 wk in a double-blind randomized crossover design. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at the end of both 2-wk treatment periods. Treatment periods were separated by a 1-wk washout. Modafinil had no effect on sleepiness as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale or the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (p > 0.1); however, significant improvements in alertness were found with the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (modafinil 18.3 +/- 3.9 min; placebo, 16.6 +/- 5.0 min; p < 0.02). No significant treatment-related improvements in cognitive performance or quality of life were found with modafinil (all p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in CPAP use on modafinil compared to placebo (6.3 +/- 1 h/ night; 6.5 +/- 1, p = 0.03). This study suggests that modafinil may improve some aspects of alertness in patients with SAHS who remain sleepy during CPAP therapy, but further studies are required to assess the significance of the reduction in CPAP use.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed1995

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of inositol treatment for panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Because they found in an earlier study that inositol, an important intracellular second-messenger precursor, was effective against depression in open and double-blind trials, the authors studied its effectiveness against panic disorder. METHOD: Twenty-one patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week, random-assignment crossover treatment trial of 12 g/day of inositol. RESULTS: The frequency and severity of panic attacks and the severity of agoraphobia declined significantly more after inositol than after placebo administration. Side effects were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that inositol's efficacy, the absence of significant side effects, and the fact that inositol is a natural component of the human diet make it a potentially attractive therapeutic for panic disorder.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Analgesic effects of intravenous lidocaine and morphine on postamputation pain: a randomized double-blind, active placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Phantom and stump pains, common sequelae of limb amputations, are significant impediments to rehabilitation of amputees. The pathophysiology and optimal treatment of postamputation pain states are unclear. While stump pain may result from neuromas in the stump, phantom pain is thought to be related to cortical reorganization. The authors hypothesized that morphine and lidocaine may have differential effectiveness on stump and phantom pains. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized double-blind, active-placebo-controlled, crossover trial to compare the analgesic effects of intravenous morphine and lidocaine on postamputation stump and phantom pains. An intravenous bolus followed by an intravenous infusion of morphine (0.05 mg/kg bolus + 0.2 mg/kg infusion over 40 min), lidocaine (1 mg/kg bolus + 4 mg/kg infusion) and the active placebo, diphenhydramine (10 mg bolus + 40 mg infusion), were performed on three consecutive days. Phantom and stump pain ratings and sedation scores were recorded at 5-min intervals using a 0-100 visual analog scale. Pain measures were initiated 30 min before drug infusion and continued until 30 min after the end of infusion. Subjects' self-reported pain relief and satisfaction were assessed at the end of each infusion. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 32 subjects enrolled completed the study. Eleven subjects had both stump and phantom pains, 11 and 9 subjects had stump and phantom pain alone, respectively. Baseline pain scores were similar in the three drug groups. Compared with placebo, morphine reduced both stump and phantom pains significantly (P < 0.01). In contrast, lidocaine decreased stump (P < 0.01), but not phantom pain. The changes in sedation scores for morphine and lidocaine were not significantly different from placebo. Compared with placebo, self-reported stump pain relief was significantly greater for lidocaine (P < 0.05) and morphine (P < 0.01), while phantom pain relief was greater only for morphine (P < 0.01). Satisfaction scores were significantly higher for lidocaine (mean +/- SD: 39.3 +/- 37.8, P < 0.01) and morphine (45.9 +/- 35.5, P < 0.01) when compared with placebo (9.6 +/- 21.0). CONCLUSIONS: Stump pain was diminished both by morphine and lidocaine, while phantom pain was diminished only by morphine, suggesting that the mechanisms and pharmacological sensitivity of stump and phantom pains are different.

Adult↗