Efficacy and safety of aceclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind comparative clinical trial versus diclofenac - an Indian experience

A Review of Aceclofenac: Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects on Musculoskeletal Disorders

Aceclofenac is an oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. Although there are some differences in the authorized indications between countries, aceclofenac is mainly recommended for the treatment of inflammatory and painful processes, such as low back pain (LBP), scapulohumeral periarthritis, extraarticular rheumatism, odontalgia, and osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The analgesic properties and tolerability profile of aceclofenac in musculoskeletal disorders are reviewed, focusing on relevant and recent studies. The efficacy and safety comparison of aceclofenac with other analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents in OA, AS, RA, and LBP is described. Relevant studies were identified following a literature search of PubMed using the terms "aceclofenac" and "clinical trials" published from 1 Jan 1992 to 1 Jan 2020. Aceclofenac is at least as effective as other NSAIDs in reducing pain and/or improving functional capacity in chronic pain conditions (OA, AS, RA, and LBP). It is generally well tolerated and appears to have a more favorable GI profile than other NSAIDs. Thus, current evidence indicates that aceclofenac is a useful option for the management of pain and inflammation across a wide range of painful conditions.

[Assessment of the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of first Russian generic aceclofenac in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis]

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of the drug in patients with undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We observed 60 patients (39 women and 21 men) met G. Hazlewood et al., UPIA criteria, 2011. Patients were divided into 3 groups: with monoarthritis, oligoarthritis and polyarthritis. They took aceclofenac 100 mg twice day for 3 weeks.

RESULTS

We noted significant decreasing in pain level according to visual analogue scale: in patients with monoarthritis by 69.3 mm (p0.001); in oligoarthritis group by 47.5 mm (p0.001), in patients with polyarthritis by 30 mm (p0.001). The life quality by the EQ-5D-5L index was improved too in all groups from 0.616 to 0.829 (p0.001). The satisfaction with the therapy was: in monoarthritis patients (80% of patients and 93% of doctors noted good results), in oligoarthritis group (53% and 39% accordingly) and polyarthritis (74% and 64% respectively). We suppose the difference was due to the fact that mono- and oligoarthritis patients suffered from initial forms of seronegative spondylarthropathy, in which the effectiveness of NSAIDs is traditionally higher; polyarthritis patients probably had debut of rheumatoid arthritis. Adverse events of therapy were mild. We noted gastrointestinal tract symptoms (dyspepsia) and increased ALT in 10 patients and increased blood pressure in 1 patient. The symptoms did not require discontinuation of therapy. Сonclusion. Post-registration observational study of first Russian generic aceclofenac (Alental, Vertex, Russia) was conducted. In UPIA patients aceclofenac therapy was most effective in mono- and oligoarthritis patients. The first Russian generic aceclofenac (Alental, Vertex, Russia) has good efficacy, tolerability and safety and can be recommended for arthritis treatment.

Transcriptome-based repurposing of apigenin as a potential anti-fibrotic agent targeting hepatic stellate cells

We have used a computational approach to identify anti-fibrotic therapies by querying a transcriptome. A transcriptome signature of activated hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), the primary collagen-secreting cell in liver, and queried against a transcriptomic database that quantifies changes in gene expression in response to 1,309 FDA-approved drugs and bioactives (CMap). The flavonoid apigenin was among 9 top-ranked compounds predicted to have anti-fibrotic activity; indeed, apigenin dose-dependently reduced collagen I in the human HSC line, TWNT-4. To identify proteins mediating apigenin's effect, we next overlapped a 122-gene signature unique to HSCs with a list of 160 genes encoding proteins that are known to interact with apigenin, which identified C1QTNF2, encoding for Complement C1q tumor necrosis factor-related protein 2, a secreted adipocytokine with metabolic effects in liver. To validate its disease relevance, C1QTNF2 expression is reduced during hepatic stellate cell activation in culture and in a mouse model of alcoholic liver injury in vivo, and its expression correlates with better clinical outcomes in patients with hepatitis C cirrhosis (n = 216), suggesting it may have a protective role in cirrhosis progression.These findings reinforce the value of computational approaches to drug discovery for hepatic fibrosis, and identify C1QTNF2 as a potential mediator of apigenin's anti-fibrotic activity.

Efficacy and safety of aceclofenac in osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effects on pain, function, and safety of aceclofenac compared with other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or pain relief medications in patients with osteoarthritis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two investigators independently searched the database. We included randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and/or safety of aceclofenac compared with control interventions (NSAIDs or acetaminophen) in patients with osteoarthritis. We did not include placebo, opioid analgesics, NSAID combinations, and topical analgesics for the control groups. We summarized the efficacy data as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and safety outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI using the inverse variance random effect model. We assessed the heterogeneity by the I² test. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence for all outcome parameters.

RESULTS

We included 9 trials (8 double blind and 1 single blind) that evaluated pain (7 trials), function (8 trials) and safety (7 trials). We observed no significant difference in pain reduction between aceclofenac and control interventions [SMD: -0.30 (-0.62, 0.01); I²=88%; GRADE evidence- low]. Aceclofenac was more beneficial than control interventions in improving physical function [SMD: -0.27 (-0.50, -0.03); I²=88%; GRADE evidence- low]. We observed less gastrointestinal adverse events for aceclofenac than in control interventions [RR 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.83); I²=12%; GRADE evidence- moderate]. We observed no difference in overall adverse events occurrence and dropout rate between aceclofenac and control interventions.

CONCLUSION

We observed that aceclofenac was beneficial over control analgesics for function improvement and to minimize gastrointestinal adverse events. Our findings could be biased due to the heterogeneity of the sample, the fact that the trials were small and methodological issues.

Efficacy and Safety of Aceclofenac Controlled Release in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A 4-week, Multicenter, Randomized, Comparative Clinical Study

Purpose

To evaluate the analgesic effect, efficacy and safety of aceclofenac controlled release (CR) in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Materials and Methods

A total of 125 subjects with chronic knee OA were randomly divided into two groups: one group (n=62) was administered aceclofenac CR once daily and the other (n=63), aceclofenac immediate release (IR) twice a day for 4 weeks. A 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and range of motoin (ROM) were evaluated as the outcome measures. To evaluate the safety of the drug, adverse events, vital signs, physical examination findings, clinical laboratory values and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated.

Results

The VAS, KOOS and ROM were improved after 4 weeks of administration in both groups, but the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. Significant differences between the two groups were not shown in the evaluation of the adverse events, vital sign, physical examination results, clinical laboratory values, and electrocardiography.

Conclusions

The aceclofenac CR and aceclofenac IR were equally effective in patients with chronic knee OA and the clinical trial results didn't show any significant difference in safety. The new aceclofenac CR formulation was found to be effective and safe with the practical advantage of once daily administration.

A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of diclofenac in osteoarthritis: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) commonly prescribed for pain relief in osteoarthritis (OA). The relative efficacy of diclofenac compared to other pain relief medications used in OA (e.g., alternative NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase type 2 [COX-2] inhibitors) is uncertain. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the current evidence on efficacy of diclofenac versus other pain relief medications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out for randomised, well controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of diclofenac with other pain relief medications in OA (reviews, meta-analyses and n = 1 trials were excluded). The databases searched were EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Ovid MEDLINE Daily Update. Articles were included from 1999 onwards. Retrieved articles were discussed by comparator medication.

RESULTS

Of the 263 articles identified in the literature search, 37 were eventually included in this review. These were comparisons with the selective COX-2 inhibitors etoricoxib, celecoxib, lumiracoxib and rofecoxib; comparisons with the NSAIDs aceclofenac, dexketoprofen, etodolac, lornoxicam, meloxicam, nabumetone and nimesulide; and comparisons to acetaminophen, tramadol, diacerein, oxaceprol, oral hydrolytic enzyme therapies, Chinese herbal remedies and castor oil supplementation. Overall, in the majority of the trials at therapeutic doses diclofenac provided similar efficacy to comparator treatments; and in general diclofenac was able to support its position as a reference medication of choice for OA trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of diclofenac is largely unchallenged in that it remains as effective as newer pain relief medications employed in OA. A review of the available data demonstrates that diclofenac continues to provide physicians with a benchmark pharmacological treatment for OA.

Zaltoprofen, a noninferior alternative to diclofenac for the treatment of primary knee osteoarthritis -- a comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety in a 4-week, multicentric, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the clinical noninferiority of the analgesic effect of zaltoprofen (80 mg t.i.d.) compared with diclofenac (50 mg t.i.d.) in active knee osteoarthritis patients.

METHOD

In this multicentric, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group, comparative study, 213 patients of either sex, aged 40 - 65 years having radiological and clinically confirmed primary knee osteoarthritis were randomized either to zaltoprofen (n = 105) or diclofenac (n = 108) and were followed-up at weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4. The treatment period was preceded by a washout period of 1 week.

RESULTS

Patients in both the zaltoprofen and diclofenac groups exhibited significant improvement (p < 0.001) in pain intensity, functional status and pain relief at each visit from baseline with no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for global assessment rating done by the patient and investigator at the end of therapy (p > 0.05) and the proportion of patients who consumed ranitidine (p = 0.135) and paracetamol (p = 0.086) tablets during the treatment period on both the treatment arms. Both the study medications were well tolerated with no incidence of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that efficacy and safety of zaltoprofen is clinically noninferior to that of diclofenac.

A randomized, multicentric, comparative evaluation of aceclofenac-paracetamol combination with aceclofenac alone in Indian patients with osteoarthritis flare-up

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of aceclofenac-paracetamol combination against aceclofenac alone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) flare-up.

METHODS

This open, randomized, comparative, multicentric, 10-day study enrolled 199 patients (aceclofenac 100 mg + paracetamol 500 mg bid: 101; aceclofenac 100 mg, bid: 98) with painful OA flare-up. Primary efficacy parameters were pain intensity difference (PID), sum of PID (SPID), and peak PID over 4 h (0.5, 1, 2, 4 h) after first dose of study medication. Secondary efficacy measurements were mean pain intensity scores from day 1 to day 10, WOMAC scores, changes in baseline signs and symptoms, and patient's and investigator's overall efficacy assessment.

RESULTS

Both treatments showed significant improvement in their baseline values in all efficacy parameters. The combination was superior over monotherapy in terms of PID ( -0.54 vs -0.23, -1.23 vs -0.72, -1.73 vs -1.23 and -1.94 vs -1.43 at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 h respectively), SPID ( -5.46 vs -3.63) and peak PID ( -2.08 vs -1.56; p < 0.05). At the end of therapy, both treatments were comparable (p > 0.05) with respect to average pain intensity from day 1 to day 10, changes in WOMAC scores and resolution of baseline signs and symptoms. The combination was significantly superior to monotherapy with respect to the patients' and investigators' overall efficacy assessments (p = 0.035 and p = 0.009 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this open-label, comparative study in Indian patients demonstrates that aceclofenac-paracetamol combination is effective and well tolerated in relieving OA flare-up pain. The combination showed rapid pain relief compared with monotherapy which is desirable by such patients and, hence, this combination can play an important role in the management of acute painful OA flare-up.

Single dose oral aceclofenac for postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Aceclofenac is the prodrug of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac, widely used to treat acute and chronic pain. There are no known systematic reviews of its analgesic efficacy in acute postoperative pain. This review sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral aceclofenac in acute postoperative pain, using clinical studies of patients with established pain, and with outcomes measured primarily over 6 hours using standard methods. This type of study has been used for many decades to establish that drugs have analgesic properties.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of single dose oral aceclofenac in acute postoperative pain, and any associated adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to March 2009); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to March 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994); and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of oral aceclofenac for relief of acute postoperative pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The area under the "pain relief versus time" curve was used to derive the proportion of participants with paracetamol plus codeine and placebo or paracetamol alone experiencing least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours, using validated equations. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The proportion of participants using rescue analgesia over a specified time period, and time to use of rescue analgesia, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was also collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified only one study (217 participants total), which used oral aceclofenac 150 mg in patients with established postoperative pain. Aceclofenac 150 mg could not be distinguished from placebo, though ibuprofen 400 mg was distinguished from placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence of efficacy for oral aceclofenac in acute postoperative pain (at least at 150 mg single dose), its use in this indication is not justified. Because trials clearly demonstrating analgesic efficacy in the most basic of acute pain studies are lacking, use in other indications should be evaluated carefully. Given the large number of effective drugs available in this and similar classes of analgesics, there is no urgent research agenda required to demonstrate the effective dose of aceclofenac in acute postoperative pain.