Literature DB >> 12740678

A double-blind, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac with diclofenac resinate in patients with acute low back pain.

M Schattenkirchner1, K A Milachowski.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12740678     DOI: 10.1007/s10067-003-0710-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Rheumatol        ISSN: 0770-3198            Impact factor:   2.980


  9 in total

Review 1.  How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Steven J Kamper; Tasha R Stanton; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Julia M Hush
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs effective for the management of neck pain and associated disorders, whiplash-associated disorders, or non-specific low back pain? A systematic review of systematic reviews by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

Authors:  Jessica J Wong; Pierre Côté; Arthur Ameis; Sharanya Varatharajan; Thepikaa Varatharajan; Heather M Shearer; Robert J Brison; Deborah Sutton; Kristi Randhawa; Hainan Yu; Danielle Southerst; Rachel Goldgrub; Silvano Mior; Maja Stupar; Linda J Carroll; Anne Taylor-Vaisey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Manual Therapy by General Medical Practitioners for Nonspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: The ManRück Study Protocol of a Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Guido Schmiemann; Lena Blase; Christoph Seeber; Stefanie Joos; Jost Steinhäuser; Stefanie Ernst; Anika Großhennig; Eva Hummers-Pradier; Heidrun Lingner
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2015-03-13

4.  A study on factors affecting low back pain and safety and efficacy of NSAIDs in acute low back pain in a tertiary care hospital of Western Nepal.

Authors:  Srijana Bhattarai; Himal Paudel Chhetri; Kadir Alam; Pabin Thapa
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-12-15

5.  Aceclofenac-tizanidine in the treatment of acute low back pain: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multicentric, comparative study against aceclofenac alone.

Authors:  Anil Pareek; Nitin Chandurkar; A S Chandanwale; Ratnakar Ambade; Anil Gupta; Girish Bartakke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Manipulative therapy and/or NSAIDs for acute low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial [ACTRN012605000036617].

Authors:  Mark J Hancock; Christopher G Maher; Jane Latimer; Andrew J McLachlan; Chris W Cooper; Richard O Day; Megan F Spindler; James H McAuley
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Efficacy and Safety of Different Aceclofenac Treatments for Chronic Lower Back Pain: Prospective, Randomized, Single Center, Open-Label Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Jae Ho Yang; Kyung Soo Suk; Byung Ho Lee; Woo Chul Jung; Young Mi Kang; Ji Hye Kim; Hak Sun Kim; Hwan Mo Lee; Seong Hwan Moon
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.759

8.  Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain.

Authors:  Wendelien H van der Gaag; Pepijn Ddm Roelofs; Wendy Tm Enthoven; Maurits W van Tulder; Bart W Koes
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-04-16

9.  Pharmacokinetics and Anti-Gastric Ulceration Activity of Oral Administration of Aceclofenac and Esomeprazole in Rats.

Authors:  Tae Hwan Kim; Subindra Kazi Thapa; Da Young Lee; Seung Eun Chung; Jun Young Lim; Hyeon Myeong Jeong; Chang Ho Song; Youn-Woong Choi; Sang-Min Cho; Kyu-Yeol Nam; Won-Ho Kang; Soyoung Shin; Beom Soo Shin
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 6.321

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.