1.gif (1892 bytes)

Letters to the Editor

Indian Pediatrics 2002; 39:1075

Reply


We are glad that Dr. Locham et al. have read our paper with interest and have raised many queries. We would like to respond to them one by one:

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.

S.K. Kapoor,

K. Anand,

Eldho Paul,

Comprehensive Rural Health Services Projects,

Ballabgarh, District Faridabad

Haryana 121 004, India

.

 

References


Home

Past Issue

About IP

About IAP

Feedback

Links

 Author Info.

  Subscription