Comparison of the efficacy and safety of naproxen CR and nabumetone in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: To comparre the safety and efficacy of naproxen CR (1,000 mg once daily) with that of nabumetone (1,000 mg once daily) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis(OA). METHODS: A total of 159 Korean patients (80 in the naproxen CR group and 79 in the nabumetone group) were enrolled in this 4-week, single-blind, controlled, randomized, parallel study and an intention-to-treat model was used for data analysis. Six efficacy parameters were measured: Lequesne index, visual analogue pain scale at rest and atactivity, patient's and physician's global assessment, and time to walk 50 feet. RESULTS: Significant improvement in all efficacy parameters except time to walk 50 feet occurred at Week 2 and Week 4 in both groups. Themean improvement from baseline at Week 2 and Week 4 for the efficacy variables was not different between naproxen CR and nabumetone group. Twenty-four patients (30%) in the naproxen CR group and 18 patients (22.8%) in the nabumetone group withdrew from the study. Among them, only 1patient in the naproxen CR group terminated the study prematurely due to an adverse event of dyspepsia. No statistically significant difference in the frequency of adverse events, including gastrointestinal symptoms, was observed between these 2 groups during the treatment period. Significant laboratory abnormalities also did not occur during the study period in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Naproxen CR is an effective and tolerable drug in the treatment of knee OA. Efficacy and safety profiles are comparable to those of nabumetone.     

Double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and tolerability of suprofen suppositories in patients with osteoarthritic pain

In a placebo-controlled double-blind trial analgesic effectiveness and tolerability of alpha-methyl-4-(2-thienyl-carbonyl)phenylacetic acid (suprofen, Suprol) 300 mg suppositories were evaluated for 45 informed patients suffering from chronic pain due to osteoarthritis; the subjects were treated rectally, t.i.d., for 10 days. Suprofen proved to be statistically significantly superior to placebo in all the variables considered for evaluation of the analgesic effect, i.e., pain intensity and relief scores, sum of pain intensity differences (SPID), total pain relief (TOTPAR), global assessments by investigator and patient. In particular, the efficacy of suprofen was judged by the physician good or very good in 86.3% of the patients. Similar frequencies of rectal side-effects were observed in both treatment groups, with slightly but not significantly higher incidence in the group treated with suprofen. Haematologic and clinical chemistry laboratory tests showed no statistically significant alterations due to the treatment.     

The efficacy and tolerability of enteric and non-enteric coated naproxen tablets: a double-blind study in patients with osteoarthritis.

A double-blind, crossover study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel enteric coated 500 mg naproxen tablet with normal release 500 mg naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. Eighty-eight patients were randomly allocated to receive enteric coated naproxen as a single daily dose of 2 tablets at night or 1 normal release naproxen tablet twice daily for a period of 3 weeks, followed by the alternative treatment for a further period of 3 weeks. The results of patient and doctor assessments showed that both treatments were increasingly efficacious, with a significant period effect found in the measures for pain on passive movement and duration of morning stiffness. No significant treatment differences were seen in any of the measures of efficacy and tolerability, although there were more withdrawals on normal release than on enteric coated naproxen (p = 0.07). It was concluded that enteric coated naproxen given as a single 1 g dose at night and normal release 500 mg naproxen given twice daily are equally efficacious and well tolerated.     

Celecoxib: a review of its use in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain

Celecoxib is a cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitor that exhibits relative in vitro and ex vivo selectivity for COX-2 over COX-1. Results of randomised double-blind multicentre studies indicate that celecoxib is superior to placebo and has similar efficacy as conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in improving the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Analgesic efficacy and improvements in functional status are apparent within 2 weeks of starting therapy and are maintained throughout treatment. Available data suggest that celecoxib has analgesic efficacy in patients with postsurgical dental pain, although this is yet to be confirmed. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, celecoxib 100 and 200 mg and naproxen 500 mg twice daily were similarly efficacious and superior to placebo. Once and twice daily celecoxib dosage regimens provided comparable efficacy. Improvements in physical function paralleled those in pain relief. Celecoxib also has efficacy in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis of the hip. The effects of celecoxib were not diminished in elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. All dosages of celecoxib (100 to 400 mg twice daily) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily produced significant anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily showed sustained symptomatic improvements similar to those of twice daily slow-release diclofenac 75 mg over a 24-week period. Celecoxib was well tolerated in clinical trials. Upper gastrointestinal complications occurred in significantly fewer patients treated with twice daily celecoxib 25 to 400 mg than in those receiving comparator NSAIDs. There was no evidence of a dose relationship in endoscopic ulcer development and incidences in celecoxib and placebo recipients were lower than in those receiving twice daily naproxen 500 mg or ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily. Conclusions: Celecoxib is the first COX-2 specific inhibitor approved for use in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib produces significant improvements in pain and inflammation and these effects are maintained during treatment for up 24 weeks in clinical trials. Studies indicate that celecoxib has similar efficacy to conventional NSAIDs in relieving pain and improving functional status, but is associated with a lower incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulceration and complications. This promising gastrointestinal safety profile, together with sustained symptomatic relief, places celecoxib as a useful alternative for the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, particularly in patients at high risk of developing gastrointestinal events. Although data are encouraging, its place in acute pain states remains to be established.     

Rofecoxib: a review of its use in the management of osteoarthritis, acute pain and rheumatoid arthritis

Rofecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor which has little or no effect on the COX-1 isoenzyme at doses up to 1000 mg/day. Rofecoxib has greater selectivity for COX-2 than celecoxib, meloxicam, diclofenac and indomethacin. In well-controlled clinical trials, rofecoxib 12.5 to 500 mg/day has been evaluated for its efficacy in the treatment of osteoarthritis, acute pain and rheumatoid arthritis [lower dosages (5 to 125 mg/day) were generally used in the chronic pain indications]. In the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis, rofecoxib was more effective in providing symptomatic relief than placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and celecoxib and was similar in efficacy to ibuprofen, diclofenac, naproxen and nabumetone. Overall, both the physician's assessment of disease status and the patient's assessment of response to therapy tended to favour rofecoxib. In patients with postsurgical dental pain, pain after spinal fusion or orthopaedic surgery, or primary dysmenorrhoea, rofecoxib provided more rapid and more sustained pain relief and reduced requirements for supplemental morphine use after surgery than placebo. Rofecoxib was more efficacious than celecoxib in patients with acute dental pain and pain after spinal fusion surgery, although celecoxib may have been used at a subtherapeutic dose. In comparison with traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen sodium, rofecoxib was similar in efficacy in the treatment of acute pain. Although naproxen sodium provided more rapid pain relief than rofecoxib in patients with primary dysmenorrhoea, the reverse was true after orthopaedic surgery: rofecoxib provided more rapid pain relief and less supplemental morphine was needed. Rofecoxib was as effective as naproxen in providing symptomatic relief for over 8700 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Compared with traditional NSAID therapy, rofecoxib had a significantly lower incidence of endoscopically confirmed gastroduodenal ulceration and, in approximately 13,000 patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Rofecoxib was generally well tolerated in all indications with an overall tolerability profile similar to traditional NSAIDs. The most common adverse events in rofecoxib recipients were nausea, dizziness and headache. In conclusion, rofecoxib is at least as effective as traditional NSAID therapy in providing pain relief for both chronic and acute pain conditions. Rofecoxib provides an alternative treatment option to traditional NSAID therapy in the management of symptomatic pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis. Initial data from patients with primary dysmenorrhoea and postoperative pain are promising and further trials may confirm its place in the treatment of these indications. Rofecoxib has also shown promising results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and is likely to become a valuable addition to current drug therapy for this patient population. Importantly, rofecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of GI adverse events than traditional NSAIDs making it a primary treatment option in patients at risk of developing GI complications or patients with chronic conditions requiring long term treatment.     

A two-year study of chondroitin sulfate in erosive osteoarthritis of the hands: behavior of erosions, osteophytes, pain and hand dysfunction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 800 mg/die of chondroitin sulfate (CHS) per os plus naproxen versus naproxen over 2 years in patients with erosive osteoarthritis (EOA) of the hands. Joint count for erosions, Heberden and Bouchard nodes, Dreiser's algofunctional index and physicians' and patients' global assessment of disease activity were studied. A total of 24 consecutive patients (22 women and 2 men, mean age 53.0 +/- 6) suffering from symptomatic OA with radiographic characteristics of EOA were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups of 12 patients each. The first group took naproxen 500 mg only. The second group was treated with CHS 800 mg orally plus naproxen 500 mg. Joint counts, radiological hand examinations and assessment of disease activity were performed at baseline, at 12 months and at 24 months. In the second year the treated group showed significant worsening in erosion, Heberden, Bouchard and Dreiser scores was recorded. Physician and patient global assessments of disease activity showed no significant difference from baseline scores. The untreated group showed significant worsening in erosion, Heberden and Bouchard nodes, Dreiser index and physician and patient global assessment scores. This study confirms the partial efficacy of oral CHS in improving some aspects of EOA.     

Proquazone. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in rheumatic diseases and pain states

Proquazone is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent (NSAID) which, unlike most other NSAIDs, does not have a free acid group in its structure. It is advocated for use in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, osteoarthritis, musculoskeletal disorders, acute inflammatory conditions and acute pain states such as dysmenorrhoea, postoperative pain and headache. Published data in small groups of patients indicate that proquazone 300 to 900 mg/day in 3 divided doses is a possible alternative to aspirin, ibuprofen, indomethacin, and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis, and to indomethacin and ibuprofen in ankylosing spondylitis. Similarly, proquazone 300 to 900 mg/day is as effective as aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin and naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. Preliminary studies have confirmed the efficacy of proquazone in acute inflammatory disorders, and shown that it provides useful analgesic relief in acute pain states such as dysmenorrhoea, headache and after minor surgery. Evidence from small groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated for a year or more suggests that proquazone may inhibit or arrest progression of bone erosions. However, these encouraging findings clearly need confirmation in a larger number of patients studied under well-controlled conditions. The overall impression from clinical trials to date is that proquazone at dosages of greater than or equal to 900 mg/day produces a high incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea (in approximately 30% of patients). However, these effects were usually of mild to moderate severity and transient in nature and in most comparative studies the overall tolerability of proquazone was assessed as being comparable to that of other NSAIDs tested. Similarly, withdrawal from therapy due to side effects was no greater with proquazone than with other NSAIDs evaluated. Initial experience with lower dosages of proquazone (300 to 450 mg/day) suggest that efficacy is maintained and tolerability markedly improved. Thus, at present, proquazone would seem to be as effective as other NSAIDs used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. However, further studies are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of this agent, especially at the lower daily dosages currently recommended, and to clarify whether it does have significant 'disease modifying' potential.     

Valdecoxib

In ten large, well-controlled, randomised trials (n = 203 to 1089), valdecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase-2, was significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and pain associated with primary dysmenorrhoea, and for postsurgical analgesia. Valdecoxib 1.25 to 10mg twice daily and valdecoxib 10mg once daily were more effective than placebo for the relief of pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, and dosages above 5mg twice daily were similar in efficacy to naproxen 500mg twice daily. Similarly, valdecoxib 5 and 10 mg/day were as effective for osteoarthritis of the hip as naproxen 500mg twice daily. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, valdecoxib 10, 20 or 40 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, and similar in efficacy to naproxen 500mg twice daily; there were no significant differences in efficacy between the three dosages of valdecoxib. Valdecoxib 20 or 40mg administered 1 to 3 hours before and 12, 24 and 36 hours after hip arthroplasty provided significantly better analgesia than placebo, and significantly reduced the amount of morphine taken by patients. Single doses of valdecoxib 10 to 80mg administered before foot or oral surgery provided significantly better analgesia than placebo; when administered after oral surgery, valdecoxib 20 or 40mg provided greater sustained analgesia than oxycodone 10mg/paracetamol 1000mg or rofecoxib 50mg. In contrast to three nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), valdecoxib 40mg twice daily did not cause significant changes in platelet function and bleeding times. Chronic users of NSAIDs who were switched to valdecoxib 10 or 20 mg/day for 12 weeks experienced significantly fewer gastroduodenal erosions or ulcers than patients receiving ibuprofen 2400 mg/day or diclofenac 150 mg/day for 12 weeks. Valdecoxib was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with a similar incidence of adverse events to placebo.     

伊索昔康治疗类风湿性关节炎

伊索昔康是一种昔康类苯并噻嗪衍生物。作者用国产伊索昔康治疗典型类风湿性关节炎87例,疗效满意。总有效74例,占85％,其中显效50例(58％)。该药副作用少而轻,是一种较好的抗炎镇痛新药,作者还随机对37例病人用伊索昔康和萘普生(naproxen)作了交叉对照试验,两药的疗效结果和副作用发生率无显著差异。     

Efficacy and tolerability profile of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis: A randomized,double-blind,placebo and active-comparator controlled 12-week efficacy trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of treatment with etoricoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. METHODS: In the 12-week placebo- and active comparator-controlled period of a randomized, double-blind study, eligible patients were treated with etoricoxib 60 mg once daily (n = 224), naproxen 500 mg twice daily (n = 221), or placebo (n = 56). Western Ontario McMaster's Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and patient's global assessment of disease status were primary end points. Key secondary and other end points were patient's and investigator's global assessment of response to therapy, WOMAC stiffness subscale, investigator's global assessment of disease status, rescue paracetamol use, proportion of patients discontinuing due to lack of efficacy, and study joint tenderness. RESULTS: Etoricoxib 60 mg demonstrated efficacy significantly superior to placebo (p < or = 0.005) and comparable to naproxen 500 mg twice daily as assessed by the primary efficacy end points. Secondary and other end points confirmed these results. Treatment effects were evident by day 2, maximal by week 2, and sustained over the entire 12 weeks. Etoricoxib was well tolerated for 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib showed rapid and durable treatment effects in patients with OA of the knee or hip. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated.     

Evaluation of the functional status aspects of health-related quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis treated with celecoxib.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the functional status of patients with signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee after treatment with celecoxib compared with placebo and naproxen. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week trial. SETTING: Multicenter study conducted at 71 sites in the United States and Canada. PATIENTS: One thousand four patients with active osteoarthritis of the knee in a flare state. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned randomly to one of five treatment groups: placebo; celecoxib 50 mg twice/day, 100 mg twice/day, and 200 mg twice/day; and naproxen 500 mg twice/day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index was used to measure functional status. At the end of the treatment period, patients in the four active treatment groups had significantly better functional status than those receiving placebo. Patients treated with celecoxib 100 mg twice/day had significantly better improvements in pain scores than those treated with placebo and naproxen. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib was better than placebo and comparable with naproxen in improving aspects of functional status in patients with osteoarthritis.     

A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. METHODS: In this 6-week double-blind, active comparator controlled, parallel-group study eligible osteoarthritis patients were randomised to receive either etoricoxib 60 mg once daily (n = 256) or diclofenac 50 mg three times daily (n = 260). The primary study endpoint was the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Other endpoints included were the WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscales, and the Patient's Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) questionnaire. Early efficacy was evaluated using WOMAC first question (pain walking on a flat surface) and PGART 4 h after the morning dose of each drug on days 1 and 2. Rescue medication (paracetamol) used was also recorded. The study was designed to show comparable efficacy between etoricoxib 60 mg once daily and diclofenac 50 mg three times daily with respect to the primary endpoint and was conducted outside the United States at 67 centres in 29 countries. RESULTS: Etoricoxib (60 mg once daily) was comparable in efficacy to diclofenac (150 mg daily) on all the above parameters. The one exception was in the assessment of early efficacy where etoricoxib demonstrated significantly greater benefit within 4 h of taking the first dose on the first day of therapy (p = 0.007) as evaluated by the percentage of patients with good or excellent (PGART) responses. The treatment effects of both drugs were similar by the time day 2 was reached and were sustained throughout the 6 weeks of therapy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib is clinically effective in the therapy of osteoarthritis providing a magnitude of effect comparable to that of the maximum recommended daily dose of diclofenac. The onset of clinical benefit with etoricoxib on day one is more rapid than that of diclofenac. Both drugs were generally well tolerated.     

Etoricoxib

Etoricoxib is a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAID with a higher COX-1 to COX-2 selectivity ratio than the other COX-2-selective NSAIDs rofecoxib, valdecoxib or celecoxib. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, improvements in tender and swollen joint counts and patient and investigator global assessment of disease activity were significantly greater in etoricoxib than in placebo recipients in two studies. Etoricoxib was also significantly more effective than naproxen in one of these studies. In patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, etoricoxib was significantly more effective than placebo and had similar efficacy to naproxen with regards to improvements in pain and physical function scores and patient global assessment of disease status scores in two studies. Etoricoxib had similar efficacy to diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Single-dose etoricoxib relieved pain in patients with postoperative dental pain in two studies. Similar scores assessing total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) were reported in etoricoxib and naproxen sodium or ibuprofen recipients, and higher TOPAR8 scores were reported with etoricoxib than with paracetamol (acetaminophen)/codeine. Pain relief was significantly better with etoricoxib than placebo in two studies in patients with chronic low back pain. Etoricoxib had similar efficacy to indomethacin in a study in patients with acute gout, and single-dose etoricoxib had similar efficacy to naproxen sodium in a study in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. Compared with non-COX-selective NSAIDs, etoricoxib was associated with significantly fewer upper gastrointestinal (GI) perforations, ulcers or bleeds, and was significantly less likely to result in treatment discontinuation because of NSAID-type GI symptoms or any GI symptoms.     

Diclofenac sodium: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in rheumatic diseases and pain of varying origin

Diclofenac sodium, a phenylacetic acid derivative, is a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory, analgesic agent advocated for use in rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative joint disease, ankylosing spondylitis and allied conditions, and in the treatment of pain resulting from minor surgery, trauma and dysmenorrhoea. Published data indicate that diclofenac 75 to 150mg daily (25 to 50mg 3 times daily) is comparable in efficacy with ordinary aspirin 3 to 5g daily and indomethacin 75 to 150mg daily in rheumatoid arthritis and with indomethacin in osteoarthritis. Available data suggest that in patients with osteoarthritis diclofenac sodium is comparable in efficacy and tolerability with naproxen, ibuprofen, sulindac and diflunisal. As oral diclofenac is generally given in 3 divided daily doses it may be at a disadvantage relative to less frequent administration with naproxen, diflunisal and sulindac in rheumatoid arthritis, although there is some evidence of diclofenac's efficacy when administered twice daily, or once daily as a slow release tablet. The drug is also available as suppositories and ampoules for intramuscular injection. No one of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents is the most suitable drug for all patients requiring such therapy, and diclofenac should be considered along with other drugs of its type in the arthritic patient.     

A single-dose analgesic study of naproxen sodium and soluble aspirin in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Summary

Nineteen patients with moderate or severe pain due to rheumatoid arthritis were entered into a double-blind, crossover comparison of single doses of 550?mg naproxen sodium and 900?mg soluble aspirin. Pain relief, measured on a visual analogue scale, showed a rapid onset of action of both drugs. Pain relief reached 50% of its maximum within 1 hour on both drugs. There were no significant differences in the pain relief/time curves. Five patients found no relief of pain with either drug but of the remaining 14 patients 10 reported an onset of action of both drugs within half an hour. Nine patients on naproxen sodium and 7 on soluble aspirin rated pain relief as good or very good. At the end of the study, 7 patients preferred soluble aspirin, 4 preferred naproxen sodium and the remainder gave no preference. There were no side-effects reported on either drug.     

A double-blind, parallel trial of oxaprozin versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis

A double-blind trial was carried out in 24 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip to compare the efficacy and tolerance of oxaprozin with that of naproxen. Patients were assigned at random to receive fixed doses of either 1200 mg oxaprozin once daily or 250 mg naproxen 3-times daily over a period of 8 weeks. Assessments made on entry and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment showed that in the oxaprozin group there were significant mean decreases, indicating improvement in patient's condition, with respect to observer's opinion, patient's opinion, pain intensity and activity impairment at both on-therapy visits. In the naproxen group, there were significant mean decreases with respect to observer's opinion, patient's opinion, pain intensity and time to walk 15 metres. None of the mean differences between the groups was statistically significant. Adverse effects were reported for 3 of the 12 oxaprozin patients and 6 of the 12 naproxen patients. The specific adverse effects noted for more than 1 patient were diarrhoea for oxaprozin and dyspepsia for naproxen. No difference between the groups was statistically significant from this point of view. Laboratory determinations showed no toxicity in either group. It is concluded that once-daily oxaprozin is an effective and well-tolerated form of treatment for osteoarthritis, equivalent to naproxen given 3-times daily.     

Comparison of a slow-release indomethacin tablet and naproxen in osteoarthrosis

A double-blind, crossover study was performed in 21 out-patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip or knee to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new slow-release formulation (multiple units dose preparation) of indomethacin (50 mg) with those of naproxen (250 mg). After a wash-out period of 1 week, the patients were randomized to receive 2 tablets daily of one or other preparation for 3 weeks. This was followed by another wash-out period of 1 week, whereafter the patients were crossed over to the alternative drug for another 3 weeks. Subjective assessments of pain and objective assessment of joint mobility and the use of acetylsalicylic acid as rescue analgesic were used to evaluate the efficacy of the treatment. Analysis of results from 19 patients showed that both drugs effectively alleviated pain, and there was no difference between indomethacin and naproxen in this respect. There were 2 withdrawals, 1 on naproxen due to inefficacy and 1 on indomethacin due to gastro-intestinal side-effects. Otherwise, the drugs were well tolerated and side-effects occurred to the same extent on both drugs. This study confirms the good efficacy and tolerability of the new slow-release indomethacin preparation.     

Section 2 Comparative clinical trial of three propionic acid derivatives(ibuprofen,ketoprofen and naproxen) in rheumatic diseases

Summary

A comparative study was carried out in 30 patients with rheumatic disease to assess the effectiveness and tolerance of 1200?mg. ibuprofen, 300?mg. ketoprofen, and 1000?mg. naproxen daily. The trial lasted 2 months, ibuprofen and ketoprofen being given in alternating 15-day periods to 15 of the patients, and ibuprofen and naproxen given similarly to the other 15 patients. The results, as assessed by patients and physician, showed similar efficacy against pain for all three drugs, with a slight tendency in favour of ibuprofen. Ibuprofen was much better tolerated and even allowed a return to normal in some patients with gastric intolerance of the other drugs. Overall assessment of treatment showed a clear patient preference for ibuprofen.     

Diflunisal compared with naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthrosis of hip or knee: a double-blind trial.

A randomized double-blind trial was carried out in 20 patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip or knee to compare the efficacy and tolerance of treatment with diflunisal or naproxen. During the first 4 weeks, patients received either 250 mg diflunisal or 250 mg naproxen twice daily and this was increased by 250 mg daily in 5 patients on diflunisal and in 3 on naproxen for the second 4 weeks of the trial. The results of subjective assessments made before and at the end of Week 8 showed a trend in favour of diflunisal for improvement of symptoms, except for weight-bearing pain which was improved in only 1 patient in each group. More of the patients receiving diflunisal than naproxen considered treatment to have been satisfactory, and rated their response as equally as good as or better than previous medication. Diflunisal produced significantly high incidence of gastro-intestinal upsets, leading to the withdrawal of 2 patients at Week 4.