Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Trimetazidine versus betahistine in Ménière's disease. A double blind method].

Authors: A, Martini; F, De Domenico;

[Trimetazidine versus betahistine in Ménière's disease. A double blind method].

Abstract

The efficacy and acceptability of trimetazidine (60 mg daily) in the treatment of Meniere's disease were compared with those of betahistine (36 mg daily) during a double-blind study spanning two months. Enrolled in the study were 45 patients (33 treated with trimetazidine, 23 with betahistine) presenting cochlear symptoms (vertigo, tinnitus, hearing loss) compatible with a diagnosis of Meniere's disease. Five patients dropped out of the study (3 in the trimetazidine group did not comply with the therapy and 2 in the betahistine group complained of poor response to the treatment) and were not taken into account in the final analysis, which therefore bore on 40 patients (19 receiving trimetazidine and 21 receiving betahistine). Trimetazidine was found to be significantly more effective than betahistine as far as the overall evolution of the ENT disease was concerned, yielding 79% and 57% improvement rates in each group, respectively (p = 0.027). Complete disappearance of the dizziness attacks was noted in 10 patients out of 19 in the trimetazidine group, versus 5/21 patients in the betahistine group (p = 0.06). There was no statistically significant difference between both treatments, as assessed from other clinical or audiometric criteria. Clinical acceptability was equally excellent in both treatment groups.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Time Factors, Adolescent, Trimetazidine, Middle Aged, Random Allocation, Audiometry, Double-Blind Method, Vertigo, Humans, Female, Meniere Disease, Aged, Betahistine

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    4
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
4
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!