Khan F M, Williams P I
Bridgend General Hospital, Newport, Wales.
Curr Med Res Opin. 1992;13(1):1-12. doi: 10.1185/03007999209115216.
An on-going multi-centre, double-blind, parallel-group study is being carried out to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sustained-release (SR) formulations of etodolac and diclofenac in patients with degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis) of the knee. An interim analysis of the findings has been made for 64 patients from two centres which have now completed their part in the study. Thirty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive 600 mg etodolac SR once daily for 4 weeks; the remaining 32 patients received 100 mg diclofenac SR. Primary efficacy assessments rated on a 5-point categorical scale were patient and physician overall assessments of the patient's condition, night pain and pain intensity. Secondary efficacy parameters included weight-bearing pain, stiffness duration, joint tenderness on pressure, degree of swelling and erythema, degree of knee flexion and time to walk 15 metres. The results showed that for both etodolac SR and diclofenac SR treatment groups there was an improvement from baseline in all efficacy parameters at the last visit and no statistically significant difference was observed between treatments. However, although not statistically significant, the improvement rate in the patient's condition at Week 2 was slightly greater in the etodolac SR treatment group, suggesting that improvement may occur more rapidly with etodolac SR than with diclofenac SR. With regard to tolerability, 5 patients in the etodolac SR treatment group and 3 in the diclofenac SR group withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions. Two events (dyspepsia and mouth ulceration) in the etodolac SR group and 4 events (headache, glossitis, depression and insomnia) in the diclofenac SR group were considered to be definitely drug-related. Dyspepsia was reported by 3 patients (1 withdrawal) treated with etodolac SR and by 4 patients (2 withdrawals) treated with diclofenac SR. A statistically significant decrease was observed in haemoglobin and haematocrit values after 4 weeks of treatment in the diclofenac SR group, but this was not considered to be clinically important. In addition, there were no clinically significant changes in blood chemistry and urinalysis for either treatments. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that 600 mg etodolac SR once daily for 4 weeks is effective in the treatment of patients with degenerative joint disease of the knee, as is 100 mg diclofenac SR. In addition, both drugs have comparable tolerability profiles.
一项正在进行的多中心、双盲、平行组研究正在开展,以比较依托度酸和双氯芬酸缓释制剂对膝关节退行性关节病(骨关节炎)患者的疗效和耐受性。对来自两个中心的64例患者的研究结果进行了中期分析,这两个中心现已完成其在该研究中的部分工作。32例患者被随机分配接受每日一次600mg依托度酸缓释制剂,持续4周;其余32例患者接受100mg双氯芬酸缓释制剂。主要疗效评估采用5分分类量表,包括患者和医生对患者病情、夜间疼痛和疼痛强度的总体评估。次要疗效参数包括负重疼痛、僵硬持续时间、压痛时的关节压痛、肿胀和红斑程度、膝关节屈曲程度以及行走15米所需时间。结果显示,依托度酸缓释制剂组和双氯芬酸缓释制剂组在末次访视时所有疗效参数均较基线有所改善,且治疗组间未观察到统计学显著差异。然而,尽管无统计学显著差异,但依托度酸缓释制剂治疗组在第2周时患者病情的改善率略高,这表明依托度酸缓释制剂可能比双氯芬酸缓释制剂起效更快。关于耐受性,依托度酸缓释制剂治疗组有5例患者和双氯芬酸缓释制剂组有3例患者因不良反应退出研究。依托度酸缓释制剂组有2例事件(消化不良和口腔溃疡)和双氯芬酸缓释制剂组有4例事件(头痛、舌炎、抑郁和失眠)被认为肯定与药物有关。接受依托度酸缓释制剂治疗的3例患者(1例退出)和接受双氯芬酸缓释制剂治疗的4例患者(2例退出)报告有消化不良。双氯芬酸缓释制剂组在治疗4周后血红蛋白和血细胞比容值出现统计学显著下降,但这在临床上不被认为具有重要意义。此外,两种治疗方法的血液化学和尿液分析均无临床显著变化。总之,本研究结果表明,每日一次600mg依托度酸缓释制剂持续4周对膝关节退行性关节病患者有效,100mg双氯芬酸缓释制剂同样有效。此外,两种药物的耐受性相当。