A long term multi-centre, double-blind, parallel group study was undertaken to investigate the efficacy and safety of aceclofenac (170 patients, 100 mg b.i.d. and placebo once daily) in comparison to diclofenac (173 patients, 50 mg t.i.d.) given for 6 months to patients of both sexes with active rheumatoid arthritis. Efficacy was evaluated in 131 aceclofenac and 130 diclofenac patients at 15 days, 1, 2, 4 and 6 months. Although both treatment groups showed significant improvement in all evaluations of pain and inflammation (assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale and the Ritchie Index) and a progressive reduction in morning stiffness, there were no significant differences between the groups. There was, however, a trend towards greater improvement in hand grip strength with aceclofenac (22% improvement) than diclofenac (17% improvement). Adverse events in both groups were minor, predominantly gastro-intestinal, and fewer patients tended to experience gastro-intestinal events on aceclofenac (13%) than on diclofenac (17%). The overall assessment of tolerance, however, did not differ significantly between groups. In summary, this study supports a therapeutic role for aceclofenac in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and suggests it is an effective and safe NSAID for the treatment of this disease.

This prospective, multicentre, international, observational, cohort study compared injection site pain (ISP) and injection site reactions (ISRS) between interferon beta-1b (IFNB-1b; Betaferon) 250 microg subcutaneously every other day and interferon beta-1a (IFNB-1a; Rebif) 44 microg subcutaneously three times weekly in patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Patients started treatment within 3 months before recruitment and were on full dose of therapy at inclusion. Patients self-injected IFNB and self-assessed ISP for 15 consecutive injections immediately, 30 and 60 min after injection, using a visual analogue scale diary. Study staff assessed ISRS. Of 445 patients (valid cases), approximately 90% used autoinjectors. More patients were pain-free at all timepoints with IFNB-1b than with IFNB-1a (eg, 30 min: 42.6% versus 19.7%; P<0.0001). The mean proportion of pain-free injections was greater for IFNB-1b (eg, 30 min: 79.0%) than for IFNB-1a (53.3%; P<0.0001). The proportion of patients without ISRS was greater for IFNB-1b (second visit 51.8% versus 33.8%; P<0.0001). Compared with IFNB-1a, more IFNB-1b patients either had no pain or their ISP had no influence on treatment satisfaction (76.9% versus 64.1%; P=0.006). The impact on tolerability and patient acceptability of any new IFNB product formulations would, however, have to be evaluated in comparative studies.

No abstract

No abstract