• Users Online: 32
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 35-39

Prospective, open-label, randomized, parallel group, comparative clinical study of two topical formulations of diclofenac diethylamine in the treatment of acute painful musculoskeletal conditions


1 CMO, HQWNC & Professor, Department of Orthopedics, INHS Asvini & CMO, HQWNC, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Orthopedics, IFH Level III, MONUSCO, DR Congo
3 Department of Orthopedics, Military Hospital, Secunderabad, Telengana, India

Correspondence Address:
Major Vivek Mathew Philip
Department of Orthopedics, Indian Field Hospital Level III, MONUSCO
DR Congo
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jmms.jmms_58_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been used in the management of musculoskeletal pain due to inconsistent skin penetration of topical formulations. The quick penetrating solution of diclofenac is a novel topical solution of diclofenac diethylamine (4.64%), which has increased skin penetration. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of quick penetrating solution of diclofenac with diclofenac gel in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 140 patients suffering from acute musculoskeletal pain who were randomized to receive diclofenac diethylamine 4.64% w/v topical solution (Group A) or diclofenac diethylamine 1.16% gel (Group B). The pain intensity difference (PID) between patients in both groups at rest and during movement of the affected area on day 3 and day 7 after injury was noted using the visual analog scale (VAS) and were compared with the baseline. A comparison of the requirement of oral rescue analgesics and adverse effects in both groups was also carried out. Results: The PID in VAS from baseline was significantly better in patients in Group A than patients in Group B on days 3 (3.74 and 2.42;P< 0.05) and 7 (6.8 and 5.54,P< 0.05), respectively, at rest. The PID in VAS from baseline was significantly better in patients in Group A than patients in Group B on day 3 (4.05 and 2.65;P< 0.05) and day 7 (7.34 and 6.00,P< 0.05), respectively, during movement. The number of patients requiring rescue medications were significantly lower in Group A (n = 1) compared to Group B (n = 16) (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Diclofenac diethylamine 4.64% w/v is more effective in relieving acute pain in painful musculoskeletal conditions in comparison with diclofenac diethylamine topical gel 1.16% w/w with lesser requirement of rescue analgesics and minimal adverse effects.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed398    
    Printed11    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded83    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal