The topical NSAID felbinac versus oral NSAIDS: a critical review.

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disorders such as soft tissue injuries have traditionally been treated with oral NSAIDs, despite the significant side-effects associated with their clinical use. However, four separate multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trials have shown that the efficacy of the topical NSAID, felbinac, is equivalent to that of the oral NSAID, ibuprofen, in the treatment of soft tissue injuries, and to that of oral ibuprofen or fenbufen in mild to moderate osteoarthritis. In general practice the incidence of side-effects with felbinac is low, while oral NSAIDs have been associated with significant problems, particularly in the gastrointestinal system. Consequently, the cost of treating side-effects is reduced with felbinac treatment compared with oral NSAIDs, making it a logical treatment alternative from an economic view point as well as for reasons of efficacy and safety.

• Authors: G Hosie, H Bird
• Journal: European journal of rheumatology and inflammation (Eur J Rheumatol Inflamm) Vol. 14 Issue 4 Pg. 21-8 ( 1994) ISSN: 0140-1610 [Print] England
• PMID: 7601178 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Journal Article, Review)

Chemical References

• Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
• Phenylacetates
• Phenylbutyrates
• biphenylylacetic acid
• fenbufen

Topics

• Administration, Oral
• Administration, Topical
• Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal (administration & dosage, adverse effects, therapeutic use)
• Clinical Trials as Topic
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Double-Blind Method
• Humans
• Knee Joint
• Neck Injuries
• Osteoarthritis (drug therapy)
• Phenylacetates (administration & dosage, adverse effects, therapeutic use)
• Phenylbutyrates (administration & dosage, adverse effects, therapeutic use)
• Sprains and Strains (drug therapy)
• Treatment Outcome