Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Aug 21:14:250.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-250.

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac diethylamine 1.16% gel in acute neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac diethylamine 1.16% gel in acute neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Hans-Georg Predel et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: Neck pain (NP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder in primary care that frequently causes discomfort. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be used to reduce neck pain and associated inflammation and facilitate earlier recovery. Topical diclofenac diethylamine (DDEA) 1.16% gel is clinically proven to be effective and well tolerated in acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions, but until now no clinical data existed for its use in acute NP. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of DDEA 1.16% gel compared with placebo gel in acute NP.

Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with acute NP (n = 72) were treated with DDEA 1.16% gel (2 g, 4x/day, for 5 days) or placebo. Efficacy assessments included pain-on-movement (POM), pain-at-rest (PAR), functional neck disability index (NDI) and response to treatment (decrease in POM by 50% after 48 h). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study.

Results: The primary outcome, POM at 48 h, was statistically significantly lower with DDEA gel (19.5 mm) vs. placebo (56.9 mm) (p < 0.0001), representing a clinically relevant decrease from baseline (75% vs. 23%, respectively). All POM scores were significantly lower with DDEA gel vs. placebo from 1 h, as were PAR and NDI scores from first assessment (24 h) onwards (all p < 0.0001). Response to treatment was significantly higher with DDEA gel (94.4%) vs. placebo (8.3%) (p < 0.0001). There were no AEs with DDEA gel.

Conclusions: DDEA 1.16% gel, which is available over-the-counter, was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of acute neck pain. The tools used to assess efficacy suggest that it quickly reduced neck pain and improved neck function. However, questions remain regarding the comparability and validity of such tools. Further studies will help ascertain whether DDEA 1.16% gel offers an alternative treatment option in this common, often debilitating condition.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01335724.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Progress of patients throughout the trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pain-on-movement (POM) over time (5 days of treatment). There was a significantly greater reduction in POM with DDEA 1.16% gel compared with placebo from the first assessment at 1 h to the final visit at 96 h (p < 0.0001).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pain-at-rest (PAR) over time (5 days of treatment). PAR was significantly lower with DDEA 1.16% gel vs. placebo at all post-baseline visits (p < 0.0001).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Functional impairment (Neck Disability Index, NDI) over time (5 days of treatment). The NDI score demonstrated that patients’ function improved significantly with DDEA 1.16% gel vs. placebo from the first to the last assessment (p < 0.0001).

References

    1. Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S, Cohen S, Hirsch J. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2009;12:E35–E70. - PubMed
    1. Fejer R, Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J. The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:834–848. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0864-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hogg-Johnson S, van der Velde G, Carroll L, Holm L, Cassidy J, Guzman J, Cote P, Halderman S, Ammendolia C, Carragee E. et al.The burden and determinants of neck pain in the general population: results of the bone and joint decade 2000–2010 task force on neck pain and its associated disorders. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009;32:S46–S60. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.11.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chiu T, Leung A. Neck pain in Hong Kong: A telephone survey on prevalence, consequences, and risk groups. Spine. 2006;31:E540–E544. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000225999.02326.ad. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kvarnstrom S. Occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders in a manufacturing industry with special attention to occupational shoulder disorders. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1983;8:1–114. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data