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 I(2) 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); I(2)=88%; GRADE evidence- low]. Aceclofenac was more beneficial than control interventions in improving physical function [SMD: -0.27 (-0.50, -0.03); I(2)=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); I(2)=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.

ANTECEDENTES: El aceclofenac es el profármaco del antiinflamatorio no esteroide (AINES) diclofenac, de amplio uso para el tratamiento del dolor agudo y crónico. No existe ninguna revisión sistemática de su eficacia analgésica en el dolor posoperatorio agudo. Esta revisión procura evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad del aceclofenac oral en el dolor posoperatorio agudo, mediante estudios clínicos de pacientes con dolor establecido, y con resultados medidos principalmente durante seis horas con el uso de métodos estándar. Este tipo de estudio se ha utilizado durante décadas para establecer que los fármacos tienen propiedades analgésicas. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia del aceclofenac oral en una dosis única para el dolor posoperatorio agudo y cualquier evento adverso asociado. ESTRATEGIA DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en (número 1, 2009), MEDLINE vía Ovid (1966 hasta marzo 2009); EMBASE vía Ovid (1980 hasta marzo 2009); the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 hasta 1994); y en listas de referencias de artículos. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos clínicos aleatorios, doble ciego, controlados con placebo de aceclofenac oral para el alivio del dolor posoperatorio agudo en adultos. RECOPILACIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión evaluaron de forma independiente la calidad de los ensayos y extrajeron los datos. Se utilizó el área bajo la curva "alivio del dolor versus tiempo" para derivar la proporción de pacientes con paracetamol más codeína y placebo o paracetamol solo que experimentaron al menos un alivio del dolor del 50% durante cuatro a seis horas, con el uso de ecuaciones validadas. Se calculó el número necesario a tratar para lograr un beneficio (NNT) con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. La proporción de participantes con analgesia de rescate durante un período de tiempo específico, y el tiempo transcurrido hasta el uso de analgesia de rescate, se buscaron como medidas adicionales de eficacia. También se recopiló información sobre los eventos adversos y los retiros. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Con las búsquedas se identificó sólo un estudio (217 participantes en total), que utilizó aceclofenac oral 150 mg en pacientes con dolor posoperatorio establecido. El aceclofenac 150 mg no pudo distinguirse del placebo, aunque sí fue así para ibuprofeno 400 mg. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Ante la falta de pruebas de la eficacia del aceclofenac oral en el dolor posoperatorio agudo (al menos en la dosis única de 150 dosis), su uso para esta indicación no está justificado. Dado que faltan ensayos que demuestren claramente la eficacia analgésica en estudios básicos sobre dolor agudo, debe evaluarse cuidadosamente el uso para otras indicaciones. No es prioritaria una agenda de investigación para demostrar la dosis efectiva de aceclofenac para el dolor posoperatorio agudo porque se dispone de un gran número de fármacos efectivos en esta y otras clases similares de analgésicos.

Tizanidine and aceclofenac individually have shown efficacy in the treatment of low back pain. The efficacy and tolerability of the combination have not yet been established. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aceclofenac-tizanidine fixed dose combination against aceclofenac alone in patients with acute low back pain. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, comparative, multicentric, parallel group study enrolled 197 patients of either sex in the age range of 18-70 years with acute low back pain. The patients were randomized to receive either aceclofenac (100 mg)-tizanidine (2 mg) b.i.d or aceclofenac (100 mg) alone b.i.d for 7 days. The primary efficacy outcomes were pain intensity (on movement, at rest and at night; on VAS scale) and pain relief (on a 5-point verbal rating scale). The secondary efficacy outcomes measures included functional impairment (modified Schober's test and lateral body bending test) and patient's and investigator's global efficacy assessment. aceclofenac-tizanidine was significantly superior to aceclofenac for pain intensity (on movement, at rest and at night; P < 0.05) and pain relief (P = 0.00) on days 3 and 7. There was significant increase in spinal flexion in both the groups from baseline on days 3 and 7 with significant difference in favour of the combination group (P < 0.05). There were significantly more number of patients with excellent to good response for the aceclofenac-tizanidine treatment as compared to aceclofenac alone (P = 0.00). Both the treatments were well tolerated. In this study, aceclofenac-tizanidine combination was more effective than aceclofenac alone and had a favourable safety profile in the treatment of acute low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of aceclofenac 100 mg and compare that with placebo and naproxen 500 mg in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. STUDY DESIGN: In this double-blind, prospective, multicentre, randomised, three-way, crossover study, women were randomly assigned to receive one of six treatment sequences, comprising single oral doses of aceclofenac 100 mg, naproxen 500 mg or placebo, when menstrual pain reached a predetermined level of severity. A single dose of the assigned study medication was taken on three menstrual periods; a different medication was taken on each treatment day. Analgesic efficacy was determined by self-reported analgesia scoring and participants' and investigators' global evaluation of treatment effectiveness. Measurements also included physical examination and adverse events. RESULTS: Total pain relief scores were not statistically significantly different for aceclofenac and naproxen, and both were statistically significantly more effective than placebo (p = 0.019 and 0.002, respectively). This finding was supported by secondary endpoints including sum of pain intensity differences (SPID/8), peak analgesia (peak pain intensity and peak pain relief), and participants' and investigators' overall evaluation of effectiveness. Both aceclofenac and naproxen were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Aceclofenac (100 mg) and naproxen (500 mg) effectively treated the pain associated with primary dysmenorrhoea, and both were more effective than placebo at easing menstrual pain assessed by various pain relief criteria.

The aim of the present placebo-controlled, double-blind study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of single doses of aceclofenac 150 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg in 217 patients with postoperative pain after third molar surgery. Outcome of primary efficacy was judged by overall assessment of the area under the curve (AUC) of graphs for pain intensity (AUC pain) pain relief (AUC relief), both measured from serial visual analogue scales over a 6 h investigation period. Other measures of efficacy included the rate of pain reduction in the first hour, the number of patients who took 'escape' analgesics and the time before they did, and an overall assessment of pain relief score on a five-point categorical scale. Ibuprofen 400 mg was significantly superior to placebo for pain relief (P < 0.01), degree of pain reduction in the first hour (P = 0.005), and the number of patients who required escape analgesia (P < 0.001), and the time before they did (P < 0.001). The outcome for patients treated with aceclofenac 150 mg was not significantly different from that of patients treated with placebo (P > 0.05). A single dose of ibuprofen 400 mg provided significant pain relief in the early postoperative period after third molar surgery, whereas a single dose of aceclofenac 150 mg was not effective in the management of postoperative pain after this operation.

The efficacy and tolerability of aceclofenac was compared with diclofenac resinate in a double-blind, multicentre randomised study in patients with acute low back pain suffering from degenerative spinal disorders. The study included 227 patients randomised to receive either aceclofenac 2 x 100 mg daily or diclofenac resinate 2 x 75 mg daily for up to 10 days. The primary objective was to demonstrate the clinical non-inferiority of the analgesic efficacy of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate, as assessed by changes from baseline in the visual analogue scale (0-100 mm) pain score, at rest and at visit 3 (final visit on day's 8-10). Secondary objectives included the time to early cure (resolution of pain) and global assessment of tolerability. Mean change in pain score at rest, and as visit 3, compared with baseline, was 61.6 mm (SD 24.5) for the aceclofenac group ( n = 100) and 57.3 mm (SD 22.8) for the diclofenac resinate group ( n = 105) in the per-protocol population. Similar changes were observed in the intention-to-treat population. Between-group differences of 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm for the per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations, respectively, demonstrated clinical non-inferiority of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate. Furthermore, there was evidence for superiority of aceclofenac over diclofenac resinate in terms of statistical significance, as the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was above -10 mm and 0 mm. In the intention-to treat population, a total of six aceclofenac-treated patients discontinued their medication owing to early cure, compared with only one patient receiving diclofenac resinate. Seventeen aceclofenac- (14.9%), and 18 diclofenac resinate-treated patients (15.9%) reported at least one adverse event. However, the total number of adverse events reported was lower in patients receiving aceclofenac (22 versus 31 in the diclofenac resinate group). In conclusion, non-inferiority of the analgesic efficacy of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate was demonstrated in patients with localised, uncomplicated acute lumbosacral pain. For the reduction in pain levels from baseline there was also evidence for superiority of aceclofenac compared with diclofenac resinate in terms of statistical significance, although this difference was not considered clinically relevant. The results also showed a trend towards a better safety and tolerability profile of aceclofenac over diclofenac resinate from a clinical point of view.

BACKGROUND: The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [SOS] project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. METHODS: We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4-5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.