The sample size for this study was small. However, based on the encouraging results of this proof-of-concept study, longer duration studies in larger population can be conducted to further confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: Clinical Trial Registry-India URL: http://ctri.nic.in, Registration Number: CTRI/2009/091/001036.

Treatment with low-dose chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg daily, significantly reduced mean 24-h ABP as well as daytime and nighttime BP. Due to its short duration of action, no significant 24-h ABP reduction was seen with HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily, which merely converted sustained hypertension into masked hypertension. Thus, low-dose chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg, could be used as monotherapy for treatment of essential hypertension, whereas low-dose HCTZ monotherapy is not an appropriate antihypertensive drug. (Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Hydrochlorothiazide CR with Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone in Patients With Stage I Essential Hypertension; CTRI/2013/07/003793).

This study suggests that HCQ has antiplatelet properties possibly through the AA pathway (downstream to thromboxane A2 production). With possible additional beneficial effects over the traditional CVD risk factors, larger studies in the future might explore HCQ's potential as an antiplatelet agent.

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, doubledummy, 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.

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.