1. We are not sure what
they want to say by this. However, the bottom line is that nimesulide
performed better than paracetamol. Whether this is because of better
anti-inflammatory activity or better anti-pyretic activity is
something that the study was not designed to address and is immaterial
to the study.
2. The point is just a
repetition of what we have accepted in the paper. We had to resort to
similar schedule for the purpose of blinding and all the previous
studies referred to in the paper have also done so.
3. The point made by
them is valid, except for the fact that the mean decrease in the
temperature is based only on those children who were available later,
while the baseline temperature includes all children. As said in the
paper some were lost to follow up/referred/died etc. This explains the
discrepancy noted by Dr. Locham et al. We agree that this point has
not been clearly mentioned in the paper leading to this confusion. We
are sorry for that.
4. The cases with
temperature of > 40º C were excluded for ethical reasons as it
would have been unfair to subject them to a study.
5. The rescue therapy
consisted of hydrotherapy and the use of alternative anti-pyretic if
necessary.
6. That one of the
authors is an employee of the manufacturers and that they funded the
study is clearly mentioned in the paper. The manufacturer’s role was
in funding and supplying the drugs. They did not interfere with the
conduct of the study and we take full responsibility for the study.
