Comparison of gastrointestinal safety and tolerability of aceclofenac with diclofenac: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability and efficacy of aceclofenac with diclofenac in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentric, comparative study, post 7 day placebo washout, patients were randomly allocated to receive either aceclofenac 100 mg b.i.d. or diclofenac 50 mg t.i.d. and were followed up for the next 6 weeks. The GI tolerability was evaluated based on the incidence and severity of predefined GI adverse events (AEs), number of gastroprotective agents (GPAs) consumed by patients, and discontinuation from the study due to GI AEs. The secondary outcome included assessment of pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, pain relief score, and investigators' and patients' overall assessments of response to study drugs. RESULTS: A total of 591 (aceclofenac group: 297; diclofenac group: 294) patients were enrolled. The cumulative incidence of GI AEs for dyspepsia (28.1% versus 37.9%; p = 0.014), abdominal pain (19% versus 26.3%; p = 0.037), overall incidence of predefined GI AEs (57.3% versus 73.6%; p < 0.001) and number of patients reporting GI AEs (28.9% versus 36.5%; p = 0.053) were significantly less in the aceclofenac group compared to the diclofenac group throughout the study. All the AEs were mild to moderate in intensity. Fewer patients from the aceclofenac group required GPAs compared to the diclofenac group (28.17% versus 33.68%; p = 0.155). During first 7 days of therapy, >90% of patients from aceclofenac group did not require GPAs. There were no differences between the study groups in the various pain assessment scales when measured during the study period. CONCLUSION: Aceclofenac was better tolerated in terms of incidence and severity of GI AEs and GPA requirement and was as efficacious as diclofenac. The need for GPAs increased with the increase in duration of treatment with NSAIDs. Hence, it could be concluded that usual practice of co-prescription of GPAs with aceclofenac could be avoided to improve patient compliance and reduce cost of treatment. However, long term trials with endoscopic evaluation in the wider population are required to assess the GI tolerability of aceclofenac and diclofenac in detail.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".