Efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution (pennsaid) in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial. Effect of a topical diclofenac solution for relieving symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with a topical diclofenac solution: a randomised controlled, 6-week trial [ISRCTN53366886]. Equivalence study of a topical diclofenac solution (pennsaid) compared with oral diclofenac in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. Diclofenac sodium gel in patients with primary hand osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium gel for knee osteoarthritis in elderly and younger patients: pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials. Topical diclofenac patch in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. Intraindividual differences in pain relief and functional improvement in osteoarthritis with diclofenac or tramadol. Local NSAID gel (eltenac) in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. A double blind study comparing eltenac with oral diclofenac and placebo gel. Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) compared with those of topical placebo, DMSO vehicle and oral diclofenac for knee osteoarthritis. Efficacy of topical diclofenac diethylamine gel in osteoarthritis of the knee. Diclofenac/misoprostol compared with diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Arthrotec Osteoarthritis Study Group. Topical diclofenac versus placebo: a double blind, randomized clinical trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. [Reduced diclofenac administration by B vitamins: results of a randomized double-blind study with reduced daily doses of diclofenac (75 mg diclofenac versus 75 mg diclofenac plus B vitamins) in acute lumbar vertebral syndromes]. Diclofenac patch for topical treatment of acute impact injuries: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, multicentre study. Double-blind comparison of efficacy and gastroduodenal safety of diclofenac/misoprostol, piroxicam, and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The effectiveness of topical diclofenac for lateral epicondylitis. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in the treatment of postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of diclofenac/misoprostol in Alzheimer's disease. Intramuscular NSAIDS reduce post-operative pain after minor outpatient anaesthesia. The gastroduodenal safety and efficacy of the fixed combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Lack of efficacy of acetaminophen in treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison trial with diclofenac sodium. Electroacupuncture versus diclofenac in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. A double-blind comparison of the gastroduodenal safety and efficacy of diclofenac and a fixed dose combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) but can produce harmful systemic effects and end-organ damage. A topical NSAID formulation may provide symptom relief with fewer adverse effects. A new topical diclofenac sodium solution-containing the absorption enhancer dimethyl sulfoxide-was evaluated for the relief of the symptoms of primary OA of the knee.
                A total of 326 patients met entry criteria (including abnormal radiographic findings and flare of pain) and were randomized to receive 40 drops of topical diclofenac solution or a vehicle-control solution, 4 times daily, for 12 weeks. We evaluated 3 primary outcome measures, the Western Ontario McMaster Universities LK3.1 OA Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and a patient global assessment, and 2 other measures, stiffness and pain on walking, at baseline and after final application. We assessed safety by evaluation of adverse events, vital signs, and irritation at the application site.
                Topical diclofenac solution was significantly more effective than the vehicle-control solution for all outcome measures; pain, P = .001; physical function, P = .002; patient global assessment, P = .003; stiffness, P = .005; and pain on walking, P = .004. Among patients receiving topical diclofenac, self-limiting minor skin irritation occurred in 68 (41.5%) of 164 patients, including dryness in 60 (36.6%), rash in 18 (11.0%), and paresthesia, pruritus, and vesiculobullous rash in 1 (0.6%) each. There was no significant difference between groups in NSAID-related gastrointestinal tract complaints or in dropouts due to study-related adverse effects.
                Topical diclofenac is effective in the treatment of the symptoms of primary OA of the knee, with only minor local irritation and no significant systemic adverse events. Treatment of osteoarthritis with oral NSAID therapy provides pain relief but carries a substantial risk of adverse effects. Topical NSAID therapy offers an alternative to oral treatment, with the potential for a reduced risk of side effects. The objective of this trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of a topical diclofenac solution in relieving the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee.
                We identified 248 men and women from southern Ontario with primary osteoarthritis of the knee and at least moderate pain. The patients were randomly assigned to apply 1 of 3 solutions to their painful knee for 4 weeks: a topical diclofenac solution (1.5% wt/wt diclofenac sodium in a carrier containing dimethyl sulfoxide [DMSO]); a vehicle-control solution (the carrier containing DMSO but no diclofenac); and a placebo solution (a modified carrier with a token amount of DMSO for blinding purposes but no diclofenac). The primary efficacy end point was pain relief, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) LK3.0 Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Secondary end points were improved physical function and reduced stiffness (measured by the WOMAC subscales), reduced pain on walking and patient global assessment (PGA). Safety was evaluated with clinical and laboratory assessments.
                In the intent-to-treat group the mean change (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) in pain score from baseline to final assessment was significantly greater for the patients who applied the topical diclofenac solution (-3.9 [- 4.8 to -2.9]) than for those who applied the vehicle-control solution (-2.5 [- 3.3 to -1.7]; p = 0.023) or the placebo solution (-2.5 [-3.3 to -1.7]; p = 0.016). For the secondary variables the topical diclofenac solution also revealed superiority to the vehicle-control and placebo solutions, leading to mean changes (and 95% CIs) of -11.6 (-14.7 to -8.4; p = 0.002 and 0.014, respectively) in physical function, -1.5 (-1.9 to -1.1; p = 0.015 and 0.002, respectively) in stiffness and -0.8 (-1.1 to -0.6; p = 0.003 and 0.015, respectively) in pain on walking. The PGA scores were significantly better for the patients who applied the topical diclofenac solution than for those who applied the other 2 solutions (p = 0.039 and 0.025, respectively). The topical diclofenac solution caused some skin irritation, mostly minor local skin dryness, in 30 (36%) of the 84 patients, but this led to discontinuation of treatment in only 5 (6%) of the cases. The incidence of gastrointestinal events did not differ between the treatment groups. No serious gastrointestinal or renal adverse events were reported or detected by means of laboratory testing.
                This topical diclofenac solution can provide safe, site-specific treatment for osteoarthritic pain, with only minor local skin irritation and minimal systemic side effects. Topical NSAIDs have been proven to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) in short-term studies (2 weeks). To justify its chronic use, efficacy of a topical NSAID over a longer term of study should be demonstrated. The efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution over a 6-week treatment course in symptomatic primary OA of the knee was investigated.
                216 men and women, age 40-85 years, with radiologically confirmed primary OA of the knee and a flare of pain at baseline following discontinuation of prior therapy were enrolled into this double-blind study. Participants applied either a topical diclofenac solution (Pennsaid) or vehicle control solution (carrier with no diclofenac); 40 drops 4 times daily directly to the painful knee(s), without massage, for 6 weeks. Pre-planned primary efficacy outcome measures included the core continuous variables pain relief and improved physical function measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) LK3.1 OA Index, and improved patient global assessment (PGA). Secondary efficacy measure was reduced stiffness. Safety assessments included adverse events and vital signs.
                The topical diclofenac group had a significantly greater mean change in score (final minus baseline) compared to the vehicle control group for pain (-5.2 vs. -3.3, p = 0.003), physical function (-13.4 vs. -6.9, p = 0.001), PGA (-1.3 vs. -0.7, p = 0.0001) and stiffness (-1.8 vs. -0.9, p = 0.002). The mean difference between treatment arms (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 1.9 (0.7 to 3.2), 6.5 (2.5 to 10.5), 0.6 (0.2 to 0.9), and 0.9 (0.3 to 1.4), respectively. Safety analyses showed that topical diclofenac caused skin irritation, mostly minor local skin dryness, in 42/107 (39%), leading to discontinuation of treatment in 5/107 (5%) participants.
                This topical diclofenac solution demonstrated relief at 6 weeks of the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee. . To compare the safety and efficacy of a topical diclofenac solution versus oral diclofenac in relieving the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy equivalence trial.
                A total of 622 men and women with radiological evidence of primary knee OA and mild to severe symptoms were randomly assigned to treatment with a topical diclofenac solution plus placebo oral capsules, or placebo topical solution plus oral diclofenac (50 mg) capsules. Patients applied 50 drops of study solution and took 1 study capsule 3 times daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy variables were pain and physical function, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) VA 3.1 OA Index, and patient global assessment (PGA). Equivalence in the per-protocol group was based on previously defined ranges of clinically significant difference. Safety was assessed by evaluation of adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory data.
                The difference in mean (95% CI) change scores (final minus baseline) between treatments was 13.3 mm (-8.6 to 35.2) for pain (total scale 500 mm), 71.0 mm (-2.4 to 144.5) for physical function (total scale 1700 mm), and 4.3 mm (-1.2 to 9.8) for PGA (total scale 100 mm). The CI for each efficacy variable fell within the predefined equivalence ranges (pain, +/- 75 mm; physical function, +/- 255 mm; PGA, +/- 20 mm), indicating that no clinically relevant difference was found between the 2 treatment arms. Safety analyses of patients applying topical diclofenac solution revealed some minor skin irritation at the application site--mostly skin dryness in 83/311 (27%) patients--but a significantly reduced incidence, relative to oral diclofenac, of total and severe gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, including dyspepsia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea. The number of patients developing abnormal liver function tests (including clinically significant elevation), hemoglobin, and creatinine clearance was significantly higher in the oral diclofenac group.
                Application of this topical diclofenac solution to the knee of patients with OA produced relief of symptoms equivalent to oral diclofenac, with minor local skin irritation, but significantly reduced incidence of diclofenac-related GI complaints and abnormal laboratory values. To measure the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium gel in patients with primary hand osteoarthritis (OA).
                In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, men and women aged > or = 40 years diagnosed with primary OA in the dominant hand were randomly assigned to self-apply topical 1% diclofenac sodium gel (Voltaren Gel) (n = 198) or vehicle (n = 187) to both hands 4 times daily for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measures included OA pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale), total Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) score, and global rating of disease activity at 4 and 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included onset of efficacy in Weeks 1 and 2, durability of efficacy at 8 weeks, measures of disease activity in the dominant hand, pain intensity in the non-dominant hand, AUSCAN subindices, end of study rating of efficacy, and Osteoarthritis Research Society International response criteria.
                Diclofenac sodium gel decreased pain intensity scores by 42%-45%, total AUSCAN scores by 35%-40%, and global rating of disease by 36%-40%. Significant differences favoring diclofenac sodium gel over vehicle were observed at Week 4 for pain intensity and AUSCAN, with a trend for global rating of disease activity. At Week 6, diclofenac sodium gel treatment significantly improved each primary outcome measure compared with vehicle. Secondary outcomes generally supported the primary outcomes. The most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) was application-site paresthesia. Most AE were mild. No cardiac events, gastrointestinal bleeding, or ulcers were reported.
                Topical diclofenac sodium gel was generally well tolerated and effective in primary hand OA. (NCT ID: NCT00171665). NSAIDs used for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) have dose-related risks for gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal adverse events (AEs), particularly in elderly patients. Topical NSAIDs reduce systemic NSAID exposure and may mitigate these risks.
                To evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) versus vehicle in patients aged 25-64 or ≥65 years who have been diagnosed with knee OA.
                Pooled data from three 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trials.
                US primary care, internal medicine, orthopaedic and rheumatology practices.
                Aged ≥25 years with mild to moderate (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3) knee OA.
                After a 1-week analgesic washout, patients applied 4 g of DSG or vehicle four times daily to one knee. Rescue paracetamol (acetaminophen) up to 4 g/day was allowed.
                Key efficacy outcomes common to the three trials were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (0-20) and physical function (0-68) subscales, global rating of disease (GRD; 100-mm visual analogue scale [VAS]) and pain on movement (POM; 100-mm VAS). ANOVA was used to compare efficacy outcome differences (DSG vs vehicle) by age (25-64 or ≥65 years). A flare design was used that defined a subset of patients who experienced increased pain during the washout period (modified efficacy subpopulation [MES]).
                The MES included both patients aged 25-64 (n = 602) and ≥65 (n = 374) years. Patients in each age group applied >90% of scheduled doses. Among patients aged 25-64 years, the improvement from baseline to week 12 (least squares mean [standard error]) was greater for DSG versus vehicle for WOMAC pain (-5.8 [0.3] vs -4.7 [0.3], p = 0.007), WOMAC physical function (-17.9 [0.9] vs -14.2 [0.9], p = 0.002), GRD (-29.5 [1.6] vs -23.8 [1.6], p = 0.01) and POM (-37.3 [1.8] vs -29.0 [1.8], p < 0.001). Among patients aged ≥65 years, the improvements from baseline for most efficacy outcome scores were significantly greater with DSG versus vehicle: WOMAC pain (-5.3 [0.3] vs -4.1 [0.4], p = 0.02), WOMAC physical function (-15.5 [1.1] vs -11.0 [1.1], p = 0.004) and POM (-33.7 [2.2] vs -26.4 [2.2], p = 0.02). The efficacy of DSG did not differ significantly between patients aged 25-64 years and ≥65 years: WOMAC pain (p = 0.85), WOMAC physical function (p = 0.70), GRD (p = 0.86) and POM (p = 0.81). The incidence of any AE was greater with DSG than with vehicle among patients aged 25-64 years (56.6% vs 50.8%) and ≥65 years (55.8% vs 43.9%). Treatment-related application site dermatitis was more common with DSG compared with vehicle in both younger (4.0% vs 0.7%, respectively) and older (5.8% vs 0.4%, respectively) patients and was the main reason for the difference in treatment-related AEs between the DSG and vehicle groups. Gastrointestinal AEs were infrequent among patients treated with DSG and similar to incidence rates with vehicle in both age groups.
                DSG was effective and generally well tolerated in adults regardless of age. These data support the topical application of DSG for relief of OA knee pain in elderly and younger patients. Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers NCT00171626, NCT00171678, NCT00426621. To assess the efficacy and safety of a diclofenac hydroxyethylpyrrolidine (DHEP) patch in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee joint.
                A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was carried out on 103 outpatients for 2 weeks. The main efficacy parameters were spontaneous pain and Lequesne's Index. Secondary endpoints were walking time over a standard distance, global assessment of efficacy and tolerability, and paracetamol consumption.
                The active treatment group showed a significant improvement in pain, Lequesne's Index, and the physician's and patient's global assessment of efficacy. For these parameters the difference between groups was statistically significant in favour of the DHEP patch. Adverse reactions were seen in a small number of probands and were similar in both groups.
                The results of this trial suggest that the DHEP patch appears to be an effective and safe treatment for patients suffering from symptomatic knee OA. To investigate how individual patients with painful osteoarthritis (OA) respond to the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac and the centrally acting analgesic tramadol when individual on-demand dose titration is allowed. In addition, we studied whether the differences in the mode of action of the different analgesics were important for functional outcome in OA patients.
                This was performed as a double-blind, crossover, randomised study in 60 patients with OA of the hip (19 patients) or knee (41 patients) without clinical joint inflammation. Patients received either tramadol (50 to 100mg up to three times daily, on demand) for 4 weeks, followed by diclofenac (25 to 50mg up to three times daily, on demand) for 4 weeks, or vice versa. The multidimensional 'Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index' (WOMAC) questionnaire (pain, stiffness and functional impairment) was used to assess the effect of the drugs on pain and functional capability.
                54 patients completed both study periods. The mean (+/- SD) daily dose of tramadol consumed was 164.8mg (+/- 54.1mg) and that of diclofenac was 86.9mg (+/- 21.4mg). Both treatments modestly improved median pain intensity, paralleled by an improvement in functional parameters, and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, individual treatment effects varied greatly, and within individual patients there were considerable variations in analgesic effectiveness between the two treatments. Consistently, pain relief correlated linearly with functional improvement. More patients reported adverse events with tramadol than with diclofenac (20 vs 3%, p = 0.0056), but there was no difference in adverse event-related withdrawals (p = 0.69).
                OA patients' response to analgesic treatment was highly individual and the response to one drug was not predictive of that to another drug. A significant proportion of patients were not treated satisfactorily with diclofenac or tramadol alone. The results obtained from a descriptive analysis of group effects (means, medians) were inappropriate for drawing conclusions on individual treatment benefits. Improvement of functional capability apparently was a consequence of pain relief. Effective pain relief should therefore be the main therapeutic goal in patients with OA where inflammation is less prominent. In a randomized, double blind, multicentre study with 4 weeks follow-up of 290 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee joint, a topical NSAID (eltenac) was compared with oral diclofenac and placebo. The main outcome, Lequesne's Index and pain by VAS showed no statistically significant differences between neither of the active treatments and placebo for the total study population. However, in patients with more severe symptoms, both active groups showed statistically significant differences to placebo. No severe adverse drug reactions were seen but the number of GI reactions were three times higher in the diclofenac group compared to the topical treatment. Local skin reactions were twice as frequent in the eltenac than in the placebo group. Taking into account the nature of the treatment for a chronic disease like OA, our results indicate that eltenac gel could be a safe alternative to oral NSAIDs. While topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are considered safe, their long-term efficacy for osteoarthritis has been suspect. We conducted a 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial of topical diclofenac (TDiclo) in a vehicle solution containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) in 775 subjects with radiologically confirmed, symptomatic primary osteoarthritis of the knee. This 5-arm study compared TDiclo with a placebo solution, the DMSO vehicle, oral diclofenac (ODiclo) and the combination of TDiclo+ODiclo for relieving the signs and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Subjects applied study solution, 40 drops four times daily, and took one study tablet daily for 12 weeks. Co-primary efficacy variables were WOMAC pain and physical function and a patient overall health assessment. Secondary variables were WOMAC stiffness and patient global assessment (PGA) of the knee osteoarthritis. TDiclo was superior to placebo for pain (-6.0 vs. -4.7, P=0.015), physical function (-15.8 vs. -12.3, P=0.034), overall health (-0.95 vs. -0.37, P<0.0001), and PGA (-1.36 vs. -1.01, P=0.016), and was superior to DMSO vehicle for all efficacy variables. No significant difference was observed between DMSO vehicle and placebo or between TDiclo and ODiclo. The commonest adverse event associated with TDiclo was dry skin (18.2%). Fewer digestive system and laboratory abnormalities were observed with TDiclo than with ODiclo. Addition of TDiclo to ODiclo did not increase the incidence of systemic adverse events. TDiclo in DMSO vehicle is an effective treatment option for knee osteoarthritis with efficacy similar to, but tolerability better than ODiclo. DMSO vehicle was no more efficacious than placebo. To assess the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac diethylamine gel, 1.16%, 4 g applied qid for 3 weeks to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.
                Patients with OA of the knee washed out their OA medications for at least 5 drug half-lives. Patients with adequately high baseline pain scores were randomized to apply either double-blind active or placebo gel for 3 weeks. Acetaminophen (up to 2 g/day) was supplied as rescue medication. In a diary, patients recorded compliance to dosing and use of rescue medication and assessed daily pain on movement, spontaneous pain, and pain relief. At weekly site visits, patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire, which includes assessment of pain, stiffness, and physical function, and assessed pain intensity "right now." At the final visit, a global assessment of treatment efficacy was completed.
                Of 238 randomized patients, 237 were included in the intent to treat efficacy analysis. Treatments differed significantly for daily pain on movement at Day 5, and continued on most days through end of study. Peak differences were achieved in the second week. On the primary outcome, average pain on movement over Days 1-14, diclofenac gel was significantly superior to placebo gel. Scores for all 3 WOMAC indices for diclofenac gel treatment were significantly superior to placebo at Weeks 2 and 3. A significant difference was achieved on pain intensity "right now" at all 3 weeks. At the end of the study, patients rated diclofenac gel as significantly more effective in treating the pain of OA of the knee (p = 0.03) compared to placebo. There were no safety issues concerning adverse events or laboratory values.
                Diclofenac gel was effective and safe for relief of symptoms of OA of the knee over 3 weeks of dosing. Gastric (GU) and duodenal ulcers (DU) are common adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Endoscopically diagnosed upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration occurs in about 24% of longterm NSAID users. Coadministration of misoprostol with the NSAID reduces the incidence of NSAID induced GU and DU and their complications. However, compliance is limited by the different dosing regimens of misoprostol and NSAID and GI symptoms associated with misoprostol at its recommended q.i.d. dose. We compared the efficacy, safety, and incidence of endoscopic upper GI ulceration associated with the administration of 2 combinations of diclofenac (50 or 75 mg) and misoprostol 200 microg (D50/M200 t.i.d., D75/M200 b.i.d.), diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., and placebo in a 6 week, randomized, double blind study in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip.
                A total of 572 patients with symptomatic OA of the knee or hip and history of GU, DU. or 10 or more erosions were randomized to receive D50/M200 t.i.d., D75/M200 b.i.d., diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d., or placebo for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline, 2, and 6 weeks, and upper GI endoscopies at baseline and end of treatment.
                All active treatment groups were significantly better than placebo, at all visits, in improving OA symptoms. There were no significant differences in arthritis efficacy between the diclofenac/ misoprostol combinations and diclofenac. However, endoscopically diagnosed GU and/or DU were significantly less frequent in patients receiving D50/M200 t.i.d. (8%), D75/M200 b.i.d. (7%), and placebo (4%) compared to diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. (17%). Adverse events were not different between the active treatment groups, except for higher incidences of flatulence with D75/M200 and diarrhea with D50/M200.
                Diclofenac 50 mg/misoprostol 200 microg t.i.d. and diclofenac 75 mg/misoprostol 200 microg b.i.d. are as efficacious as diclofenac 75 mg b.i.d. in the treatment of OA, but are associated with a significantly lower incidence of gastric and/or duodenal ulcers. To assess the efficacy and safety of a topical formulation of 2% diclofenac in lecithin organogel in the treatment of pain associated with mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.
                Seventy patients completed a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled, parallel group design 2 week clinical trial. Patient responses to disease-specific (WOMAC VA3.0) and quality of life (Medical Outcome Survey SF-36) health status measures were assessed. Global assessments were also made at baseline and post-treatment. The physician conducted a global assessment and range of motion of the knee at baseline and post-treatment.
                T tests on the aggregated WOMAC total score and aggregated subscale scores revealed significant improvement (p<0.05) on the aggregated total score and the pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales from baseline to post-treatment for the active treatment group versus the placebo group. Analysis of gain scores from the aggregated WOMAC total score and aggregated subscale scores also revealed that this improvement was significantly greater than the improvement recorded by the placebo treatment group on the aggregated total and the pain and physical function subscale scores. Other efficacy measures exhibited no significant differences between or within treatment groups.
                A topical formulation of 2% diclofenac in a lecithin organogel appears to have therapeutic value in patients with mild to moderate OA of the knee as determined by responses from the WOMAC (VA3.0) osteoarthritis health status measure. Pain syndromes of the lumbar spine are one of the main problems in orthopedic practice. The therapeutic effect of NSAIDs is not subject to doubt in this connection. But considering that the application of NSAIDs is frequently associated with side effects, a reduction of dosage would be to the patient's benefit. Clinical studies have shown that concomitant treatment with vitamins B1, B6, B12 and diclofenac leads to a more efficient pain relief than treatment using diclofenac alone and thus provides the possibility of saving NSAIDs. This clinical trial was carried out in order to determine whether these results can also be achieved when a reduced dosage of diclofenac (75 mg daily) is used. 123 patients with acute pain syndromes of the lumbar spine were treated with either B-vitamins and diclofenac or diclofenac alone for a maximum of 7 days. There was the option to terminate therapy in the trial after 3-4 days in the case of total pain relief. 45 patients could stop the treatment due to remission of symptoms. 30 patients belonged to the combination therapy group, the other 15 took diclofenac alone; this difference is statistically significant (p less than 0.05). All parameters concerning pain relief and movement of the vertebral column showed statistically significant differences in favour of the B-vitamin-diclofenac-combination, too. The results document the positive influence of B-vitamins on painful vertebral syndromes and indicate that B-vitamins contribute to saving of NSAIDs by shortening the treatment time and reducing daily NSAID-dosage. To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of a newly developed diclofenac patch in the topical treatment of blunt impact injuries.
                This was a randomised, placebo controlled, double blind, multicentre study in 120 patients with traumatic blunt soft tissue injury. Within 3 h of the injury participants of sport competitions and training camps were enrolled and treated twice daily with the diclofenac or a placebo patch over a period of 7 days. Patients were randomised (1:1) to two parallel groups. Tenderness produced by pressure was measured twice daily during the first 3 days after enrollment as well as at day 7. Tenderness was defined as the amount of pressure (measured by a calibrated caliper at the centre of the injury) that first produced a pain reaction as reported by the patient.
                The primary efficacy variable was the area under the curve for tenderness over the first 3 days. The diclofenac patch was significantly more effective than placebo (p<0.0001). The treatment effect was 64.7 kp h/cm2 (95% confidence interval 48.7 to 80.9) between diclofenac and placebo patches. These results were supported by all secondary efficacy variables. The diclofenac patch produced rapid pain relief as reflected by the time to reach resolution of pain at the injured site which was significantly shorter compared to placebo (p<0.0001). The diclofenac patch was well tolerated. The most frequently observed adverse events were local cutaneous adverse reactions (pruritus, rash) of minor severity occurring with the same frequency as in the placebo group.
                A newly developed diclofenac patch is effective and safe for the treatment of blunt impact injuries. To compare the efficacy and gastroduodenal safety of a fixed-dose combination of diclofenac sodium 50 mg and misoprostol 200 micrograms twice daily with those of piroxicam 10 mg twice daily and naproxen 375 mg twice daily in patients with osteoarthritis.
                A 4 week, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study was conducted in 643 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee, who required continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for 4 weeks and who were without significant upper gastrointestinal damage as confirmed by endoscopy.
                For patients who had pre- and post-treatment endoscopic examinations, gastroduodenal ulcers developed in 3 (1.5%) of 200 patients treated with diclofenac/misoprostol, 21 (10.3%) of 204 piroxicam-treated patients, and 17 (8.6%) of 198 patients receiving naproxen (Chi square = 13.771, p = 0.001). The improvement in the osteoarthritis severity index was greater in the diclofenac/misoprostol group than in the piroxicam group (p = 0.004). Changes in physician and patient global assessments showed no significant differences between treatment groups. The incidences of diarrhoea and abdominal pain were higher in the diclofenac/misoprostol group than in the piroxicam and naproxen groups.
                Diclofenac/misoprostol at twice daily dosing is associated with significantly fewer gastroduodenal ulcers than either piroxicam or naproxen. The efficacy of diclofenac/misoprostol in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis is at least comparable to that of piroxicam and naproxen. Gastrointestinal upset and local pain commonly limit the use of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroid injection as treatments for lateral epicondylitis. Transdermal administration of an anti-inflammatory drug could avoid these adverse effects.
                To determine the effectiveness of topical diclofenac as a treatment of lateral epicondylitis.
                A convenience sample of 14 subjects meeting clinical criteria of chronic lateral epicondylitis participated in this randomized, double blind, crossover study. Each subject applied a pluronic lecithin liposomal organo-gel (PLO) over the affected lateral elbow three times daily for I week, followed by a 1-week "washout" period of no gel. A second topical PLO gel was then applied similarly for 1 week. Both gels were identical, but only one gel contained 2% diclofenac. Treatment order was randomized, and both the subject and tester were blinded. Pain and isometric wrist extension strength were measured using a visual analog pain scale (VAS) and a mounted manual muscle testing dynamometer, respectively, at the following time periods: just before application of the first gel, the last day of using the first gel, the last day of the washout week, and the last day of using the second gel. Analysis was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance.
                When subjects used diclofenac PLO, pain was significantly less than that during the pretreatment, washout, and placebo PLO periods (mean VAS: diclofenac PLO, 2.1; pretreatment, 3.5; washout, 3.4; placebo PLO, 3.6). Average wrist extension strength was significantly greater when subjects used diclofenac PLO (8.4 kg) than it was before treatment (5.9 kg). One subject developed a local rash while using diclofenac PLO.
                Topical 2% diclofenac in PLO appears to provide effective short-term reduction in elbow pain and wrist extensor weakness associated with chronic lateral epicondylitis. Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
                The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery.
                In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use.
                A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group.
                A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours. Previous studies suggest a potential benefit from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Prescribing NSAIDs, however, carries the risk of significant gastrointestinal adverse events.
                To study whether treatment with an NSAID prevents expected decline in AD patients and evaluate whether co-administration of the gastro-protective agent, misoprostol, with an NSAID is safe in AD.
                The efficacy and safety of diclofenac in combination with misoprostol (D/M) was evaluated in 41 patients with mild-moderate AD in a prospective 25-week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy measures comprised the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive and noncognitive subsections, Global Deterioration Scale, Clinical Global Impression of Change, Mini-Mental State Examination, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Physical Self-Maintenance Scale, and a caregiver-rated Global Impression of Change.
                There were no group differences with any of the outcome measures in an intent-to-treat analysis. There were some nonsignificant trends for the placebo group to have deteriorated more than the D/M-treated patients. Withdrawal rates were 12 of 24 in the D/M group and 2 of 17 in the placebo group. There were no serious drug-related adverse events.
                This pilot study, with small treatment numbers, did not demonstrate a significant effect of NSAID treatment in AD, but the trends observed justify further investigations with a larger number of participants. D/M is safe in AD patients, but its tolerability is not optimal. Two hundred healthy patients scheduled for elective minor gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly allocated to one of four groups who received either diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly (i.m.), ketorolac 30 mg i.m., diclofenac 50 mg orally, or 2 mL NaCl i.m. The drugs were administered 10-20 min prior to a standard anaesthetic. All surgery was uneventful. The patients were discharged after a mean of 110 +/- 30 min with no differences between the groups. Complaints about pain and need for post-operative analgesics were significantly less frequent in the two groups of patients receiving an intramuscular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), as compared to placebo. The patients who received 50 mg diclofenac orally, administered shortly before the procedure, had the same pain course as the placebo patients. A double-blind, randomized, parallel group study was conducted to compare the gastroduodenal safety and antiarthritic efficacy of a fixed combination of diclofenac 50 mg and misoprostol 200 micrograms with that of a combination of diclofenac 50 mg and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis. Three hundred and sixty-one patients with no significant gastroduodenal lesions were enrolled and received study medication two or three times daily for 4 weeks. Post-treatment endoscopic examination of the gastroduodenal mucosa revealed ulcers in 4% of patients in the diclofenac/placebo group compared with none in the diclofenac/misoprostol group (P = 0.015). There were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in formal assessments of osteoarthritis after either 2 or 4 weeks. It was concluded that diclofenac/misoprostol was associated with significantly less gastroduodenal damage than diclofenac, whilst being as effective as diclofenac alone in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Recommendations state that acetaminophen should be used in preference to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the initial treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee, because of lesser toxicity and the pervasive belief that acetaminophen is not only effective in treating OA pain but is of equal analgesic efficacy as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of diclofenac sodium, 75 mg twice daily, vs acetaminophen, 1000 mg 4 times daily, in 82 subjects with symptomatic OA of the medial knee. Osteoarthritis was quantitated radiographically, and subjects met stringent baseline pain criteria. The primary evaluation of efficacy used the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, with evaluations at screening, baseline, and 2 and 12 weeks after treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis was used.
                Twenty-five subjects were randomized to diclofenac, 29 to acetaminophen, and 28 to placebo. The groups were closely matched for age, sex, body mass index, prior use of OA medications, baseline pain, and radiographic features. At 2 and 12 weeks, clinically and statistically significant (P<.001) improvements were seen in the diclofenac-treated group; however, no significant improvements were seen in the acetaminophen-treated group (P =.92 at 2 weeks and.19 at 12 weeks). Stratification of subjects according to baseline pain, prestudy OA medication, and radiographic grade showed no clear pattern of preferential response to diclofenac, and did not reveal a subset of subjects who responded to acetaminophen.
                Diclofenac is effective in the symptomatic treatment of OA of the knee, but acetaminophen is not. A review of the literature reveals that there is scanty published evidence for a therapeutic effect of acetaminophen relative to placebo in patients with OA of the knee, because most published studies use active comparators (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) only. The advocacy of acetaminophen use in subjects with OA of the knee should be reconsidered pending further placebo-controlled studies. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA), diclofenac and their combination in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.
                This study was a randomized, single-blind, placebo controlled trial. The 193 out-patients with OA of the knee were randomized into four groups: placebo, diclofenac, EA and combined (diclofenac plus EA). Paracetamol tablets were prescribed as a rescue analgesic during the study. The patients were evaluated after a run-in period of one week (week 0) and again at the end of the study (week 4). The clinical assessments included the amount of paracetamol taken/week, visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index, Lequesne's functional index, 50 feet-walk time, and the orthopedist's and patient's opinion of change.
                One hundred and eighty six patients completed the study. The improvement of symptoms (reduction in mean changes) in most outcome parameters was greatest in the EA group. The proportions of responders and patients with an overall opinion of "much better" were also greatest in the EA group. The improvement in VAS was significantly different between the EA and placebo group as well as the EA and diclofenac group. The improvement in Lequesne's functional index also differed significantly between the EA and placebo group. In addition, there was a significant improvement in WOMAC pain index between the combined and placebo group.
                EA is significantly more effective than placebo and diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of OA of the knee in some circumstances. However, the combination of EA and diclofenac treatment was no more effective than EA treatment alone. This double-blind, parallel group study was conducted to evaluate the gastroduodenal safety and antiarthritic efficacy of a fixed combination of diclofenac sodium 50 mg and misoprostol 200 mcg, compared with a combination of diclofenac 50 mg and placebo. Three hundred and thirty-nine patients with rheumatoid arthritis and no significant gastric or duodenal mucosal damage were enrolled and received study medication (diclofenac/misoprostol, 164; diclofenac/placebo, 175) BID or TID for 12 weeks. Posttreatment gastroduodenal endoscopic examinations revealed ulcers in 11% of the diclofenac/placebo group, compared with only 4% of the diclofenac/misoprostol group (p = 0.034). Four-weekly assessments of arthritic condition revealed no clinically or statistically significant treatment differences. It was concluded that diclofenac/misoprostol caused significantly less gastroduodenal damage than diclofenac, but was as effective as diclofenac alone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Topical NSAIDs can provide good levels of pain relief; topical diclofenac solution is equivalent to that of oral NSAIDs in knee and hand osteoarthritis, but there is no evidence for other chronic painful conditions. Formulation can influence efficacy. The incidence of local adverse events is increased with topical NSAIDs, but gastrointestinal adverse events are reduced compared with oral NSAIDs.