TITLE:
Clinical Assessment of the Use of Propinox Hydrochloride and Scopolamine Hydrochloride in the Treatment of Abdominal Colic: A Retrospective, Comparative Study
AUTHORS:
Helio Rzetelna, Carlos Frederico Porto Alegre Rosa, Mario Kirzner, Lucas Pereira Jorge de Medeiros, Camila Melo, Marcia Gonçalves Ribeiro, Lisa Oliveira, José Galvão Alves, Mauro Geller
KEYWORDS:
Abdominal Colic, Propinox Hydrochloride, Scopolamine Hydrochloride
JOURNAL NAME:
International Journal of Clinical Medicine,
Vol.7 No.7,
July
15,
2016
ABSTRACT: Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the use of propinox hydrochloride and scopolamine hydrochloride in patients presenting abdominal colic (abdominal pain), in terms of treatment efficacy and tolerability. Material & Methods: This was an analytical, retrospective, comparative study based on hospital records of outpatients treated at Serviço de Clínica Médica do Hospital das Clínicas Costantino Otaviano (HCTCO) and at Santa Casa de Misericórdia do Rio de Janeiro, from 1988-1998. Subjects were divided into two groups: patients from Group 1 were treated with propinox hydrochloride, while patients from Group 2 were treated with scopolamine hydrochloride. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 5.0. For comparison of categorical variables, we used the chi-squared or Fisher’s test, while continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA or the Student’s T test. Results: A total of 1042 subjects were included, of which 525 were allocated to Group 1 and 517 to Group 2. Mean treatment duration was 9.166 days (±4.208) in Group 1 and 8.795 days (±5.052) in Group 2, with no statistically significant difference in treatment duration between the two groups (p = 0.198). All subjects in Group 1 were treated with propinox 10 mg (2 coated tablets, three times per day) while all subjects in Group 2 were treated with scopolamine hydrochloride 10 mg (2 coated tablets, three times per day). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in weight, BMI, heart rate, and respiratory rate at pre- and post-treatment; with the exception of higher post-treatment systolic blood pressure in Group 1, blood pressure measures also remained homogenous. Adverse events were reported among both treatment groups with no significant between-group difference in incidence (p = 0566). At pretreatment, pain intensity was more severe in Group 1 (p = 0.0257), while at post-treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups (p = 0.895). There was a statistically significant improvement in pain intensity within both treatment groups (χ2 = 631.4; df = 3; p 2 = 554.3; df = 3; p