OBJECTIVE: To compare @entity3659 and @entity5081 in the treatment of painful @entity305 in @entity6 and nondiabetics. DESIGN: A double-blind, crossover trial of treatment with @entity3659 , @entity5081 , and placebo. Treatment was given in randomized order for periods of 4 weeks. Each period was separated by a 1-week washout. The final dose was 75 mg/day for both @entity3659 and @entity5081 . @entity1 : Thirty-seven @entity1 with @entity6 and nondiabetic painful @entity305 . OUTCOME MEASURES: The treatment effects were assessed by daily ratings of @entity158 intensity on a 10-step verbal scale (0 = no @entity158 and 10 = worst thinkable @entity158 ) and at the end of each treatment period by a global rating of the analgesic effect on a 5-step verbal scale ( @entity158 relief scale). For the assessment of @entity308 , the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (CPRS) was used. RESULTS: Using the global assessment of @entity158 relief at the end of each treatment period, 22 of 33 @entity1 reported reduced @entity158 on @entity3659 treatment compared with 14 of 33 @entity1 on @entity5081 treatment and 8 @entity1 on placebo treatment (p < .0001 and p < .05 for @entity3659 and @entity5081 , respectively, against placebo). @entity3659 was slightly better than @entity5081 (p < .05) [tested by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. The order in which treatments occurred and the diagnosis of @entity6 or nondiabetes did not have any significant effect on the global rating of @entity158 relief. The mean values of the daily ratings of @entity158 intensity showed that @entity158 was more severe in the evenings than in the mornings and that @entity6 @entity1 reported worse @entity158 than nondiabetics at baseline. The mean values of @entity158 reduction as assessed with the 10-step verbal scale during the 4th week of treatment showed that @entity3659 and @entity5081 were significantly better than placebo in relieving the @entity158 (p < .0001 and p < .01, respectively, post hoc test according to Scheff  ). However, there was no significant difference between the @entity158 reduction of @entity3659 compared with @entity5081 when assessing @entity158 reduction with the 10-step verbal scale during the 4th treatment week. Nor was there a significant difference between @entity6 and nondiabetics with regard to the effect of the drugs. The clinical effect was not significantly correlated to plasma concentration of either @entity3659 and its active metabolite @entity5080 or @entity5081 in the global or daily assessments. The effect of treatment was not correlated to any particular @entity158 quality nor to the intensity of @entity158 . @entity308 was noted in three @entity1 who completed the medication trial, but the effect of treatment of @entity158 and @entity308 did not clearly correlate. The adverse side effects of @entity3659 and @entity5081 were common, and in 5 @entity1 the medication had to be discontinued because of severe side effects. CONCLUSION: From the present results and the literature, it is concluded that tricyclic antidepressants with a pharmacologic profile similar to @entity3659 are the most effective drugs in the treatment of @entity158 in both @entity6 and nondiabetic @entity1 .

A comparison a @entity3659 and @entity5081 in the treatment of painful XXXX in @entity6 and nondiabetics.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'PATIENTS'] @entity308 :: ('MESH:D003866', 'Disease') :: ['Depression', 'depression'] @entity5081 :: ('MESH:D008376', 'Chemical') :: ['maprotiline'] @entity6 :: ('MESH:D003920', 'Disease') :: ['diabetics', 'diabetic', 'diabetes'] @entity3659 :: ('MESH:D000639', 'Chemical') :: ['Amitriptyline', 'amitriptyline'] @entity5080 :: ('MESH:D009661', 'Chemical') :: ['nortriptyline'] @entity305 :: ('MESH:D011115', 'Disease') :: ['polyneuropathy'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['polyneuropathy pain', 'pain']
@entity305 :: (MESH:D011115,Disease) :: ['polyneuropathy']
