A double-blind, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac with diclofenac resinate in patients with acute low back pain
- PMID: 12740678
- DOI: 10.1007/s10067-003-0710-9
A double-blind, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac with diclofenac resinate in patients with acute low back pain
Abstract
The efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac was compared with diclofenac resinate in a double-blind, multicentre randomised study in patients with acute low back pain suffering from degenerative spinal disorders. The study included 227 patients randomised to receive either aceclofenac 2 x 100 mg daily or diclofenac resinate 2 x 75 mg daily for up to 10 days. The primary objective was to demonstrate the clinical non-inferiority of the analgesic efficacy of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate, as assessed by changes from baseline in the visual analogue scale (0-100 mm) pain score, at rest and at visit 3 (final visit on day's 8-10). Secondary objectives included the time to early cure (resolution of pain) and global assessment of tolerability. Mean change in pain score at rest, and as visit 3, compared with baseline, was 61.6 mm (SD 24.5) for the aceclofenac group ( n = 100) and 57.3 mm (SD 22.8) for the diclofenac resinate group ( n = 105) in the per-protocol population. Similar changes were observed in the intention-to-treat population. Between-group differences of 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm for the per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations, respectively, demonstrated clinical non-inferiority of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate. Furthermore, there was evidence for superiority of aceclofenac over diclofenac resinate in terms of statistical significance, as the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was above -10 mm and 0 mm. In the intention-to treat population, a total of six aceclofenac-treated patients discontinued their medication owing to early cure, compared with only one patient receiving diclofenac resinate. Seventeen aceclofenac- (14.9%), and 18 diclofenac resinate-treated patients (15.9%) reported at least one adverse event. However, the total number of adverse events reported was lower in patients receiving aceclofenac (22 versus 31 in the diclofenac resinate group). In conclusion, non-inferiority of the analgesic efficacy of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate was demonstrated in patients with localised, uncomplicated acute lumbosacral pain. For the reduction in pain levels from baseline there was also evidence for superiority of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate in terms of statistical significance, although this difference was not considered clinically relevant. The results also showed a trend towards a better safety and tolerability profile of aceclofenac over diclofenac resinate from a clinical point of view.
Similar articles
-
Efficacy and safety of aceclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind comparative clinical trial versus diclofenac - an Indian experience.Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 May;22(5):977-88. doi: 10.1185/030079906X104722. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006. PMID: 16709320 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of two sustained-release formulations of diclofenac: results of a double-blind, randomised study in patients with osteoarthritis and a reappraisal of diclofenac's use in this patient population.Curr Med Res Opin. 2007 Aug;23(8):1957-66. doi: 10.1185/030079907X223251. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007. PMID: 17631698 Clinical Trial.
-
Oxaprozin versus diclofenac in NSAID-refractory periarthritis pain of the shoulder.Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug;20(8):1279-90. doi: 10.1185/030079904125004411. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004. PMID: 15324531 Clinical Trial.
-
Review of the efficacy and tolerability of the diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% in patients with acute pain due to soft tissue injuries.Clin Ther. 2010 Jun;32(6):1001-14. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.06.001. Clin Ther. 2010. PMID: 20637956 Review.
-
Aceclofenac: a reappraisal of its use in the management of pain and rheumatic disease.Drugs. 2001;61(9):1351-78. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200161090-00012. Drugs. 2001. PMID: 11511027 Review.
Cited by
-
Aceclofenac-tizanidine in the treatment of acute low back pain: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multicentric, comparative study against aceclofenac alone.Eur Spine J. 2009 Dec;18(12):1836-42. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1019-4. Epub 2009 May 7. Eur Spine J. 2009. PMID: 19421791 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Manual Therapy by General Medical Practitioners for Nonspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: The ManRück Study Protocol of a Clinical Trial.J Chiropr Med. 2015 Mar;14(1):39-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2015.02.003. Epub 2015 Mar 13. J Chiropr Med. 2015. PMID: 26693216 Free PMC article.
-
A Review of Aceclofenac: Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects on Musculoskeletal Disorders.J Pain Res. 2021 Nov 30;14:3651-3663. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S326101. eCollection 2021. J Pain Res. 2021. PMID: 34876850 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 16;4(4):CD013581. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013581. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32297973 Free PMC article.
-
How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature.Eur Spine J. 2011 Jan;20(1):9-18. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8. Epub 2010 Jun 16. Eur Spine J. 2011. PMID: 20552378 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical