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

Summary 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 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.