Search

Azapropazone is an anti-inflammatory agent with reported uricosuric properties. The aim of the present study was to extend these observations, by examining the dose-response and to compare the uricosuric effect of azapropazone with that of probenecid. Patients were given varying doses of azapropazone from 900-2400 mg daily for 4- day periods at separated intervals. Plasma uric acid levels were measured before and at the end of each treatment period. Three other patients maintained on low purine diets were given a 4-day course of 1200 mg azapropazone daily followed at an interval by a 4-day period of probenecid 1 g daily. Plasma uric acid levels and 24 h urinary uric acid excretion were compared. The mean fall in plasma uric acid level after four days of 900 mg azapropazone daily was 31.4% (n = 9) compared with 33.9% (n = 12) on 1200 mg daily; 42.3% (n = 10) on 1800 mg daily; and 46% (n = 6) on 2400 mg daily, indicating a graded dosage response. In the three patients on low purine diets the falls in plasma uric acid levels on probenecid 1 g daily were 50.5%, 46% and 29% compared with 33.5%, 32% and 20% respectively on azapropazone 1200 mg daily. Similarly the total amount of uric acid excreted in the urine by each patient during the 4-day period on probenecid 1 g daily was 14.01; 13.03 and 8.97 mmol compared with 23.53, 10.9 and 7.69 mmol on azapropazone 1200 mg daily.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flurbiprofen has been compared with phenylbutazone in a double-blind study involving 33 patients with acute gout. Patients received either flurbiprofen 400 mg daily for 48 h followed by 200 mg daily, or phenylbutazone 800 mg daily for 48 h followed by 400 mg daily. The drugs were of comparable efficacy, while side-effects were uncommon and relatively mild. Flurbiprofen appears to be a satisfactory alternative to phenylbutazone in the management of acute gouty arthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The growing body of research evidence on substance use and substance use disorder (SU/SUD) prevention could be leveraged to strengthen the intended impact of policies that address SU/SUD. The aim of the present study was to explore how research was used in United States federal legislation that emphasized SU/SUD prevention., Design: Using a mixed-methods approach, we assessed whether the use of research predicted a bill's legislative progress. We randomly sampled 10 bills that represented different types of research keywords to examine how research was used in these bills, applying content analysis., Setting: United States Congress., Participants/cases: Federal legislation introduced between the 101st and the 114th Congresses (1989-2017; n = 1866)., Measurements: The quantitative outcome measures were bills' likelihood of passing out of committee and being enacted. Qualitative outcomes included the ways research was used in legislation., Findings: Bills that used any research language were 2.2 times more likely to pass out of committee (OR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.75, 2.72) and 82% more likely to be enacted (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.23, 2.69) than bills not using research language. Bills using dissemination words were 57% more likely to pass out of committee (OR = 1.57; CI, 1.08, 2.28) and analysis words were 93% more likely (OR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.51, 2.47) than bills not using dissemination or analysis words. Research was used to (i) define the problem to justify legislative action, (ii) address the problem by providing funding, and (iii) address the problem through industry regulations. However, there was a lack of research use that targets underlying risk and protective factors., Conclusions: In the US Congress, substance use and substance use disorder prevention bills that use research language appear to be more likely to progress in the legislative cycle than bills that do not, suggesting that legislation using research may be viewed as more credible., (© 2022 Society for the Study of Addiction.)