A comparison of the efficacy of etodolac SR (Lodine SR) and etodolac (Lodine) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis.

The efficacy and safety of a sustained-release (SR) formulation of etodolac were compared with those of conventional etodolac in two separate, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 6-week trials. This report presents an interim analysis of the data from these studies. One study included 174 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): 58 received etodolac SR 400 mg once daily (q.d.), 59 received etodolac SR 600 mg q.d., and 57 received etodolac 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.). The second study included 230 patients with osteoarthritis (OA): 80 patients received etodolac SR 400 mg q.d., 76 received etodolac SR 600 mg q.d., and 74 received etodolac 300 mg b.i.d. Efficacy was evaluated by physician's global and patient's global assessment (both studies), number of painful joints (RA study), number of swollen joints (RA study), pain intensity (OA study), and weight-bearing pain (OA study). The interim analyses of the data from the studies indicates that all three regimens produced significant improvements from baseline in all mean efficacy values at each assessment; there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. The incidence of study events, except for dyspepsia, was comparable among the treatment groups in each study; dyspepsia occurred at a significantly lower rate in patients treated with etodolac SR than in patients treated with the conventional formulation of etodolac. We conclude that etodolac SR is as effective and safe as conventional etodolac for the treatment of patients with RA or OA.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes