Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 410–415 | Cite as

Oral enzyme combination versus diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee – a double-blind prospective randomized study

  • Naseer M. Akhtar
  • Rizwan Naseer
  • Abid Z. Farooqi
  • Wajahat Aziz
  • Mussadeq Nazir
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of an oral enzyme–rutosid combination (ERC) containing rutosid and the enzymes bromelain and trypsin, with that of diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. A total of 103 patients presenting with painful episodes of OA of the knee were treated for 6 weeks in two study centers in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial. Altogether, 52 patients were treated in the ERC group and 51 patients were treated in the diclofenac group. Primary efficacy criteria were Lequesne’s Algofunctional Index (LFI) and a ‘complaint index’, including pain at rest, pain on motion and restricted function. The efficacy criteria were analyzed by applying the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test that provides the Mann–Whitney estimator (MW) as a measure of relevance. Non-inferiority was considered to be proven if the lower bound of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI-LB) was higher than MW=0.36 (benchmark of not yet relevant inferiority). Both treatments resulted in clear improvements. Within the 6-week observation period, the mean value of the LFI decreased from 13.0 to 9.4 in the ERC group and from 12.5 to 9.4 in the diclofenac group. Non-inferiority of ERC was demonstrated by both primary criteria, LFI (MW=0.5305; CI-LB=0.4171) and complaint index (MW=0.5434; CI-LB=0.4296). Considerable improvements were also seen in secondary efficacy criteria, with a slight tendency towards superiority of ERC. The global judgment of efficacy by physician resulted in at least good ratings for 51.4% of the ERC patients, and for 37.2% of the diclofenac patients. In the majority of patients tolerability was judged in both drug groups as very good or good. The current study indicates that ERC can be considered as an effective and safe alternative to NSAIDs such as diclofenac in the treatment of painful episodes of OA of the knee. Placebo-controlled studies are now needed to confirm these results.

Keywords

Diclofenac Oral enzymes Osteoarthritis Pain Randomized trial 

Abbreviations

ERC

Enzyme–rutosid combination

LFI

Lequesne’s Algofunctional Index

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Dr V. W. Rahlfs, IDV, Gauting, Germany, for performing the statistical analysis. We are grateful to Dr Mehnaz Rashid, Pacific Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Lahore (Pakistan) for her advice and support in conducting this trial, and to Dr W. Schiess, Mucos Pharma, for helpful assistance in preparing this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Pelletier JP, Martel_Pelletier J, Abramson SB (2001) Osteoarthritis, an inflammatory disease: potential implication for the selection of new therapeutic targets. Arthritis Rheum 44:1237–1247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pincus T (2001) Clinical evidence for osteoarthritis as an inflammatory disease. Curr Rheumatol Rep 3:524–534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks P (1998) Use and benefits of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Med 104:9S–13S; discussion 21S–22SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roth SH, Bennett RE (1987) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy. Recognition and response. Arch Intern Med147:2093–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Langman MJ, Weil J, Wainwright P et al. (1994) Risks of bleeding peptic ulcer associated with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [see comments] [published erratum appears in Lancet 1994 May 21;343 (8908):1302]. Lancet 343:1075–1078CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wittenborg A, Bock PR, Hanisch J, Saller R, Schneider B (2000) Vergleichende epidemiologische Studie bei Erkrankungen des rheumatischen Formenkreises am Beispiel der Therapie mit nichtsteroidalen Antiphlogistika versus einem oralen Enzymkombinationspräparat [comparative epidemiological study in patients with rheumatic diseases illustrated in an example of a treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus an oral enzyme combination]. Arzneim Forsch/Drug Res 50:728–738Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelly GS (1996) Bromelain: a literature review and discussion of its therapeutic applications. Alt Med Rev 1:243–257Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klaschka F (1996) Oral enzymes—new approach to cancer treatment: immunological concepts for general and clinical practice; complementary cancer treatment. Gräfelfing: Forum-Med-Verl-GesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Food and Drug Administration (1995) Labeling guidance diclofenac sodium delayed-release tablets.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (1998) Guidance for Industry: Clinical development programs for drugs, devices, and biological products intended for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), draft guidance, February 1998Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karbowski A, Schwitalle M, Eckardt A (1998) Oxaprozin versus diclofenac retard in treated of activated arthrosis. Zeitschri Rheumatol 57:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M, Gerard P (1987) Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Validation – value in comparison with other assessment tests [published errata appear in Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 1988;73:1 and Scand J Rheumatol 1988;17 (3):following 241]. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 65:85–89Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F (1988) Measuring gain in the evaluation of medical technology. The probability of a better outcome. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care 4:637–642Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dougados M, Leclaire P, van der Heijde D, Bloch DA, Bellamy N, Altman RD (2000) Response criteria for clinical trials on osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: a report of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Standing Committee for Clinical Trials response criteria initiative. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage/Oars. Osteoarthritis Res Soc 8:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein G, Kullich W (2000) Short-term treatment of painful osteoarthritis of the knee with oral enzymes. A randomised, double-blind study versus diclofenac. Clin Drug Invest 19:15–23Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singer F (1997) Phlogenzym in the treatment of a monoarticular gonarthritis – efficacy and tolerance, study no. MU-695 414. Geretsried: Mucos PharmaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singer F, Singer C, Oberleitner H (2001) Phlogenzym versus diclofenac in the treatment of activated osteoarthritis of the knee. A double-blind prospective randomized study. Int J Immunother XVII :135–141Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naseer M. Akhtar
    • 1
  • Rizwan Naseer
    • 1
  • Abid Z. Farooqi
    • 2
  • Wajahat Aziz
    • 2
  • Mussadeq Nazir
    • 2
  1. 1.Pakistan King Edward Medical College LahoreMayo HospitalLahorePakistan
  2. 2.Department of RheumatologyPakistan Institute of Medical SciencesIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations