Efficacy and tolerability of a topical NSAID patch (local action transcutaneous flurbiprofen) and oral diclofenac in the treatment of soft-tissue rheumatism.

The efficacy and safety of local action transcutaneous flurbiprofen 40 mg [flurbiprofen LAT] patches and diclofenac sodium tablets, 50 mg b.d., were compared in an open, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group study in patients with soft-tissue rheumatism. Patches were replaced at 12-hourly intervals. Clinical assessments were performed after 7 and 14 days of treatment. Fifty-six patients were treated with flurbiprofen LAT and 53 with diclofenac. Six withdrawals (three from each group) occurred during the treatment period. A statistically significant difference was observed in favour of flurbiprofen LAT for the principal measure, namely the investigator's opinion of overall change in clinical condition: 49/53 (92%) patients treated with flurbiprofen LAT had improved by day 14 compared with 36/49 (73%) patients receiving diclofenac sodium (p = 0.03; eligible dataset). There were also statistically significant differences in favour of flurbiprofen LAT for the investigator's assessments of the overall severity of the clinical condition (p = 0.03; eligible dataset), for the severity of pain at the region treated (p = 0.04; intent-to-treat), and for the severity of tenderness (p < 0.001; intent-to-treat). Supplementary analgesia (paracetamol) was required by two patients in the flurbiprofen LAT group and by eight diclofenac-treated patients. The difference in favour of flurbiprofen LAT in the average daily consumption of paracetamol was significant (p = 0.04). The patients' assessment of severity of pain on movement also favoured flurbiprofen LAT (p = 0.049; eligible dataset), but there were no statistically significant differences in day or night pain or quality of sleep. For the patients' opinion of treatment there was, however, a statistically significant difference in favour of flurbiprofen LAT (p = 0.02). Of the patients receiving flurbiprofen LAT, 94% regarded it as a convenient form of treatment. With respect to tolerability 8/56 (14%) patients applying flurbiprofen patches reported a total of nine adverse effects (AEs) (mainly local, mild skin irritations), vs 9/52 (17%) patients receiving diclofenac, who reported 12 AEs. Most AEs in the enteric-coated diclofenac group were of a gastrointestinal nature (one of which was severe). In terms of the proportion of patients reporting AEs related to the digestive system, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of flurbiprofen LAT (p = 0.011). In conclusion, local treatment of soft-tissue rheumatism with flurbiprofen LAT was demonstrably superior to benchmark oral therapy with diclofenac sodium over a 2-week period in terms of both efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability. Flurbiprofen LAT provided both an effective and convenient form of topical SAID treatment.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes