COX-2 Specific Inhibitors in the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Cardiovascular safety of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib compared to non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of oral celecoxib compared with a non-selective NSAID or placebo in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients. We conducted searches in EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk-of-bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The effect size was presented as a risk ratio with their 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Until July 22nd, 2021, our search identified 6279 records from which, after exclusions, 21 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled risk ratio for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration cardiovascular events for celecoxib compared with any non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.00). The pooled risk ratio for all-cause mortality for celecoxib compared with non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.98). The cardiovascular mortality rate of celecoxib was lower than non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (risk ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.99). There was no significant difference between celecoxib and non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo in the risk of other cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib is relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients, independent of dose or duration. But it remains uncertain whether this would remain the same in patients treated with aspirin and patients with established cardiovascular diseases.

Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Nonsurgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.

METHODS

We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.

RESULTS

For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.

DISCUSSION

Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.

Celecoxib for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies. Celecoxib versus placeboCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).Compared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).There was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).Results were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).Compared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).Based on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).In comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).No studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.

Expression of PGDH correlates with cell growth in both esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma

Esophageal cancer represents the fourth most common gastrointestinal cancer and generally confers a poor prognosis. Prostaglandin-producing cyclo-oxygenase has been implicated in the pathogenesis of esophageal cancer growth. Here we report that prostaglandin dehydrogenase, the major enzyme responsible for prostaglandin degradation, is significantly reduced in expression in esophageal cancer in comparison to normal esophageal tissue. Reconstitution of PGDH expression in esophageal cancer cells suppresses cancer cell growth, at least in part through preventing cell proliferation and promoting cell apoptosis. The tumor suppressive role of PGDH applies equally to both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, which enriches our understanding of the pathogenesis of esophageal cancer and may provide an important therapeutic target.

Effectiveness and Implications of Alternative Placebo Treatments: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Osteoarthritis Trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo controls are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments. Although it is unclear whether different placebo interventions for osteoarthritis vary in efficacy, systematic differences would substantially affect interpretation of the results of placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of alternative placebo types on pain outcomes in knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database from inception through 1 June 2015 and unpublished data.

STUDY SELECTION

149 randomized trials of adults with knee osteoarthritis that reported pain outcomes and compared widely used pharmaceuticals against oral, intra-articular, topical, and oral plus topical placebos.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study data were independently double-extracted; study quality was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Placebo effects that were evaluated by using a network meta-analysis with 4 separate placebo nodes (differential model) showed that intra-articular placebo (effect size, 0.29 [95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.49]) and topical placebo (effect size, 0.20 [credible interval, 0.02 to 0.38]) had significantly greater effect sizes than did oral placebo. This differential model showed marked differences in the relative efficacies and hierarchy of the active treatments compared with a network model that considered all placebos equivalent. In the model accounting for differential effects, intra-articular and topical therapies were superior to oral treatments in reducing pain. When these differential effects were ignored, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were superior.

LIMITATIONS

Few studies compared different placebos directly. The study could not decisively conclude whether disease severity and co-interventions systematically differed between trials evaluating different placebos.

CONCLUSION

All placebos are not equal, and some can trigger clinically relevant responses. Differential placebo effects can substantially alter estimates of the relative efficacies of active treatments, an important consideration for the design of clinical trials and interpretation of their results.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Role of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in exacerbation of inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the general population, selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have been associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than NSAIDs, but whether they are associated with exacerbations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review published and unpublished findings to determine whether the use of COX-2 inhibitors increased the risk for IBD exacerbations relative to placebo in the treatment of IBD.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (1966-July 2007), EMBASE (1980-July 2007), the Cochrane Library (2007 Issue 4), US Food and Drug Administration records, and data on file at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer US Pharmaceutical Group, and Merck & Co., Inc., using the search terms celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and inflammatory bowel disease, was performed to identify randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of 5 COX-2 inhibitors in patients with IBD. The publications were fully reviewed for quality. Data on trial design, patient characteristics, intervention drugs, dosages, and outcomes were collected using a predetermined data-extraction form. A meta-analysis was performed based on the publications that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Of 588 studies identified in the electronic search, 574 were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts. Fourteen related to the use of COX-2 inhibitors in patients with IBD were reviewed. Two randomized, controlled trials comparing COX-2 inhibitors with placebo were identified. In the first trial, 82 patients were randomized to receive etoricoxib (60-120 mg/d) and 77 to receive placebo. The exacerbation rates were 10.5% (8/76) in the active-treatment group and 11.4% (8/70) in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.37-2.32). In the second trial, 112 patients were treated with celecoxib (200 mg BID) and 110 received placebo. The exacerbation rates were 3.7% (4/107) in the celecoxib group and 2.7% (3/110) in the placebo group (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.17-3.18). Of these patients, 5 were lost to follow-up because of AEs. In the meta-analysis comparing COX-2 inhibitors and placebo, the RR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.39-1.88). No statistically significant differences in IBD relapse rates were found between COX-2 inhibitors and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this meta-analysis suggest that insufficient data were available to determine the impact of COX-2 inhibitors on IBD exacerbations. The relatively smaller risk for AEs makes the short-term use of COX-2 inhibitors potentially attractive, but the long-term benefits remain unclear. Further studies with sound methodology and large sample sizes are needed to evaluate the tolerability of COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of IBD.

Repeatability of gait analysis for measuring knee osteoarthritis pain in patients with severe chronic pain

Gait measures are receiving increased attention in the evaluation of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Yet, there remains a need to assess variability of gait analysis in patients with knee osteoarthritis over time and how pain affects variation in these gait parameters. The purpose of this study was to determine if important gait parameters, such as the knee adduction moment, knee flexion moment, peak vertical ground reaction force, and speed, were repeatable in patients with mild-to-moderate knee OA over a trial period of 12 weeks. Six patients were enrolled in this cross-over study design after meeting strict inclusion criteria. Gait tests were conducted three times at 4 week intervals and once after the placebo arm of a randomized treatment sequence; each gait test followed a 2-week period of receiving a placebo for a pain modifying drug. Repeatability for each gait variable was found using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with a two-way random model. This study found that the knee adduction moment was repeatable throughout the four gait tests. However, normalized peak vertical ground reaction force and knee flexion moment were not as repeatable, varying with pain. This suggests that these gait outcomes could offer a more objective way to measure a patient's level of pain.

Efficacy and tolerability of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets compared with non-specific NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and network analyses

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as non-selective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) or selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are commonly prescribed for arthritic pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Treatment guidelines for chronic NSAID therapy include the consideration for gastroprotection for those at risk of gastric ulcers (GUs) associated with the chronic NSAID therapy. The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets for the relief of signs and symptoms of OA, RA, and AS, and to decrease the risk of developing GUs in patients at risk of developing NSAID-associated GUs. The European Medical Association has approved this therapy for the symptomatic treatment of OA, RA, and AS in patients who are at risk of developing NSAID-associated GUs and/or duodenal ulcers, for whom treatment with lower doses of naproxen or other NSAIDs is not considered sufficient. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets have been compared with naproxen and celecoxib for these indications in head-to-head trials. This systematic literature review and network meta-analyses of data from randomized controlled trials was performed to compare naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets with a number of additional relevant comparators. For this study, an original review examined MEDLINE®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from database start to April 14, 2009. Using the same methodology, a review update was conducted to December 21, 2009. The systematic review and network analyses showed naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets have an improved upper gastrointestinal tolerability profile (dyspepsia and gastric or gastroduodenal ulcers) over several active comparators (naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, etoricoxib, and fixed-dose diclofenac sodium plus misoprostol), and are equally effective as all active comparators in treating arthritic symptoms in patients with OA, RA, and AS. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets are therefore a valuable option for treating arthritic symptoms in eligible patients with OA, RA, and AS.

Celecoxib: a review of its use for symptomatic relief in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Celecoxib (Celebrex®) was the first cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) to be introduced into clinical practice. Coxibs were developed to provide anti-inflammatory/analgesic activity similar to that of nonselective NSAIDs, but without their upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, which is thought to result largely from COX-1 inhibition. Celecoxib is indicated in the EU for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in adults. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in these EU-approved indications, as well as overviewing its pharmacological properties. In randomized controlled trials, celecoxib, at the recommended dosages of 200 or 400 mg/day, was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as or more effective than paracetamol (acetaminophen) and as effective as nonselective NSAIDs and the coxibs etoricoxib and lumiracoxib for the symptomatic treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. Celecoxib was generally well tolerated, with mild to moderate upper GI complaints being the most common body system adverse events. In meta-analyses and large safety studies, the incidence of upper GI ulcer complications with recommended dosages of celecoxib was significantly lower than that with nonselective NSAIDs and similar to that with paracetamol and other coxibs. However, concomitant administration of celecoxib with low-dose cardioprotective aspirin often appeared to negate the GI-sparing advantages of celecoxib over NSAIDs. Although one polyp prevention trial noted a dose-related increase in cardiovascular risk with celecoxib 400 and 800 mg/day, other trials have not found any significant difference in cardiovascular risk between celecoxib and placebo or nonselective NSAIDs. Meta-analyses and database-derived analyses are inconsistent regarding cardiovascular risk. At recommended dosages, the risks of increased thrombotic cardiovascular events, or renovascular, hepatic or hypersensitivity reactions with celecoxib would appear to be small and similar to those with NSAIDs. Celecoxib would appear to be a useful option for therapy in patients at high risk for NSAID-induced GI toxicity, or in those responding suboptimally to or intolerant of NSAIDs. To minimize any risk, particularly the cardiovascular risk, celecoxib, like all coxibs and NSAIDs, should be used at the lowest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration after a careful evaluation of the GI, cardiovascular and renal risks of the individual patient.

Prevention of NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal toxicity: a meta-analysis of traditional NSAIDs with gastroprotection and COX-2 inhibitors

Background:

Traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors (COX-2s) are important agents for the treatment of a variety or arthritic conditions. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of misoprostol, H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of tNSAID related upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and to review the upper gastrointestinal (GI) safety of COX-2s.

Methods:

An extensive literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic agents used for the prevention of upper GI toxicity, and RCTs that assessed the GI safety of the newer COX-2s. Meta-analysis was performed in accordance with accepted techniques.

Results:

39 gastroprotection and 69 COX-2 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Misoprostol, PPIs, and double doses of H2RAs are effective at reducing the risk of both endoscopic gastric and duodenal tNSAID-induced ulcers. Standard doses of H2RAs are not effective at reducing the risk of tNSAID-induced gastric ulcers, but reduce the risk of duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol is associated with greater adverse effects than the other agents, particularly at higher doses. COX-2s are associated with fewer endoscopic ulcers and clinically important ulcer complications, and have fewer treatment withdrawals due to GI symptoms than tNSAIDS. Acetylsalicylic acid appears to diminish the benefit of COX-2s over tNSAIDs. In high risk GI patients, tNSAID with a PPI or a COX-2 alone appear to offer similar GI safety, but a strategy of a COX-2 with a PPI appears to offer the greatest GI safety.

Conclusion:

Several strategies are available to reduce the risk of upper GI toxicity with tNSAIDs. The choice between these strategies needs to consider patients’ underlying GI and cardiovascular risk.

COX-2 selective inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) in osteoarthritis (OA) and their gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renovascular, and hepatic side effects compared with traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and literature reviews.

RESULTS

Coxibs are comparable to traditional NSAIDs, providing moderate benefit for OA patients in pain and function versus placebo. NSAIDs, including coxibs, are superior to acetaminophen for OA, particularly in patients with moderate to severe pain. Coxibs decrease gastroduodenal ulcers (74% relative risk reduction) and ulcer complications (61% reduction) versus traditional NSAIDs. Meta-analysis of randomized trials indicates that coxibs increase the risk of myocardial infarctions approximately twofold versus placebo and versus naproxen, but do not increase the risk versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. NSAIDs, including coxibs, commonly cause fluid retention and increase blood pressure and uncommonly induce congestive heart failure or significant renal dysfunction; risk factors include advanced age, hypertension, and heart or kidney disease. NSAIDs are a rare cause of clinical hepatotoxicity (<1 liver-related death per 100,000 NSAID users in clinical studies). Increased rates of aminotransferase elevations occur with rofecoxib (2%) and high-dose lumiracoxib (3%), and postmarketing cases of clinical liver injury with lumiracoxib have been reported recently.

CONCLUSIONS

Coxibs are as effective as traditional NSAIDs and superior to acetaminophen for the treatment of OA. Coxibs cause fewer gastrointestinal complications than traditional NSAIDs. Coxibs increase cardiovascular risk versus placebo and naproxen-but probably not versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. Blood pressure commonly increases after initiation of selective or nonselective NSAIDs, especially in hypertensive patients.

Clinical use and pharmacological properties of selective COX-2 inhibitors

Selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) are approved for the relief of acute pain and symptoms of chronic inflammatory conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They have similar pharmacological properties but a slightly improved gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile if compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). However, long-term use of coxibs can be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) adverse events (AEs). For this reason, two coxibs were withdrawn from the market. Currently celecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib are used. These three coxibs differ in their chemical structure and selectivity for COX-2, which might explain some of their pharmacological features. Following oral administration, the less lipophilic celecoxib has a lower bioavailability (20-40%) than the other two coxibs (74-100%). All are eliminated by hepatic metabolism involving mainly CYP2C9 (celecoxib, lumiracoxib) and CYP3A4 (etoricoxib). Elimination half-life varies from 5 to 8 h (lumiracoxib), 11 to 16 h (celecoxib) and 19 to 32 h (etoricoxib). In patients with liver disease, plasma levels of celecoxib and etoricoxib are increased about two-fold. Clinical efficacies of the coxibs are comparable to tNSAIDs. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the slightly better GI tolerability (which is lost if acetylsalicylic acid is coadministered) of the coxibs is offset by their elevated risks for CV AEs (also seen with tNSAIDs other than naproxen), which apparently increase with dose and duration of exposure. In addition, the higher costs for coxibs (if compared to tNSAIDs, even when a "gastroprotective" proton pump inhibitor is coadministered) should be taken into consideration, if a coxib will be selected for certain patients with a high risk for GI complications. For such treatment, the lowest effective dose should be used for a limited time. Monitoring of kidney function and blood pressure appears advisable. It is hoped that further controlled studies can better define the therapeutic place of the coxibs.

Clinical pharmacology of celecoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor

NSAIDs are extensively used worldwide; nonetheless, they are associated with adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects. COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) have been developed to reduce pain and inflammation without associated GI and bleeding risks. Celecoxib was the first COX-2 inhibitor introduced on the market, and it still remains so, whereas rofecoxib and valdecoxib were withdrawn due to excess cardiovascular (CV) risk. There is consequently a concern that CV toxicity reflects a class effect of all COX-2 inhibitors. Celecoxib possesses anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties, and the evidence for CV risk is rather small and comparable to that of other traditional NSAIDs in short-term treatments (of < 4 weeks). It could be suggested that the use of low doses of celecoxib (100 mg b.i.d.) in short-treatment, especially in patients with previous experience of GI events and the recommendation of avoiding use of celecoxib in patients with CV history or risk, contribute in the decision-making process of prescribing COX-2 or NSAIDs.

Gastrointestinal safety of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2s) are used to treat a variety of arthritic and inflammatory conditions. The aim of this study was to assess the upper gastrointestinal (GI) harms of the long-term use of COX-2s, compared with nonselective NSAIDs and placebo, in arthritis sufferers.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Searches were conducted in (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (2) the Cochrane Collaboration Library (2005), (3) MEDLINE (to December 2006), and (4) Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) (to June 2005). Reference lists from trials and abstracts of conference proceedings were searched by hand, and experts were contacted to identify further relevant trials. RCTs of celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib, and lumiracoxib were included if they reported on endoscopic ulcers, clinically important ulcer complications, or adverse gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms with the use of these COX-2s, compared with placebo or with nonselective NSAIDs. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. Data were analyzed by using Review Manager 4.2 in accordance with accepted meta-analysis techniques.

RESULTS

Compared with nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2s produced significantly fewer gastroduodenal ulcers (relative risk, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.30) and clinically important ulcer complications (relative risk, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.50), as well as fewer treatment withdrawals caused by GI symptoms. The co-administration of acetylsalicylic acid appears to reduce the GI safety of COX-2s in subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

COX-2s appear to offer greater upper GI safety and are better tolerated than nonselective NSAIDs. The co-administration of acetylsalicylic acid might reduce the safety advantage of COX-2s over that of nonselective NSAIDs.

Rofecoxib 12.5 mg, rofecoxib 25 mg, and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis: results of two similarly designed studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of rofecoxib and celecoxib for the treatment of knee or hip OA over 6 weeks.

METHODS

Two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomly assigned 3:3:3:1 in Study 1 to once daily (QD) rofecoxib 12.5 mg (N = 456), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 459), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 456), or placebo (N = 150) and 3:3:1 in Study 2 to QD rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 471), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 460), or placebo (N = 151). There was no rofecoxib 12.5 mg arm in Study 2. The primary outcome measure of both studies was pain at night over 6 weeks for rofecoxib 25 mg vs. celecoxib 200 mg. Efficacy comparisons with rofecoxib 12.5 mg in Study 1 were included as pre-specified study objectives but not as pre-specified study hypotheses. Secondary endpoints included Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks and over 1 week. Safety was evaluated through the assessment of spontaneously reported adverse experiences (AEs), evaluation of vital signs, and laboratory data reported by investigators and patients.

RESULTS

For the primary endpoint, reduction in pain at night over 6 weeks in Study 1 was not significantly different between active treatments; in Study 2 rofecoxib 25 mg significantly (p = 0.023) reduced pain at night compared with celecoxib 200 mg over 6 weeks. For the secondary endpoints, in both studies, significantly (p < 0.05) more patients treated with rofecoxib 25 mg than celecoxib 200 mg had a good or excellent PGART over 6 weeks, and over the first week (p < 0.01). In both studies, there were no significant differences between active medications in the incidence of reported overall, serious, or drug-related AEs. The reported AE rates with the active treatments were generally similar to those with placebo in the two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib 25 mg was significantly better than celecoxib 200 mg in relieving night pain at 6 weeks in one study; this was not confirmed in the accompanying study.

Short-term efficacy of pharmacotherapeutic interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain: A meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pain is the most debilitating symptom in osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK).

AIM AND METHODS

To determine the short-term pain-relieving effects of seven commonly used pharmacological agents for OAK pain by performing a systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled trials.

RESULTS

In total, 14,060 patients in 63 trials were evaluated. Opioids and oral NSAIDs therapy in patients with moderate to severe pain (mean baseline 64.3 and 72.8 mm on VAS respectively) had maximum efficacies compared to placebo at 2-4 weeks of 10.5 mm [95% CI: 7.4-13.7] and 10.2 mm [95% CI: 8.8-11.2] respectively. The efficacy of opioids may be inflated by high withdrawal rates (24-50%) and "best-case" scenarios reported in intention-to-treat analyses. In patients with moderate pain scores on VAS (mean range from 51 to 57 mm), intra-articular steroid injections and topical NSAIDs had maximum efficacies at 1-3 weeks of 14.5mm [95% CI: 9.7-19.2] and 11.6 mm [95% CI: 7.4-15.7], respectively. Paracetamol, glucosamin sulphate and chondroitin sulphate had maximum mean efficacies at 1-4 weeks of only 4.7 mm or lower. Heterogeneity tests revealed that best efficacy values of topical NSAIDs may be slightly deflated, while data for oral NSAIDs may be slightly inflated due to probable patient selection bias.

CONCLUSION

Clinical effects from pharmacological interventions in OAK are small and limited to the first 2-3 weeks after start of treatment. The pain-relieving effects over placebo in OAK are smaller than the patient-reported thresholds for relevant improvement.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in two similarly designed osteoarthritis studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the lower osteoarthritis (OA) dose of rofecoxib to the recommended dose of celecoxib in two identically designed studies.

METHODS

Patients with knee OA were randomized (2:2:1 ratio: rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily (qd), celecoxib 200 mg qd, or placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) averaged over 6 weeks on a five-point scale. Rofecoxib would be declared at least as effective as celecoxib if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for difference in means was no lower than -0.5. Additional endpoints included Pain and Physical Function subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) OA Index. Adverse experiences (AEs) were recorded and combined from the two studies for analysis.

RESULTS

Study 1 enrolled 395 patients (rofecoxib, n = 160; celecoxib, n = 157; placebo, n = 78). Study 2 enrolled 413 patients (rofecoxib, n = 159; celecoxib, n = 169; placebo, n = 85). Rofecoxib 12.5 mg was at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg by PGART (Study 1 difference -0.09 [95% CI: -0.32, 0.14] and Study 2 difference 0.02 [95% CI: -0.20, 0.24]), and both were significantly (p < 0.001) more effective than placebo. Comparable efficacy was also seen for WOMAC Pain and Physical Function subscales with the active treatments. There was a significantly higher (p < 0.05) incidence of serious AEs with celecoxib than rofecoxib or placebo, none of which was drug-related. There were no significant differences in the pre-specified measurements of safety including drug-related AEs or discontinuations due to AEs, and the medications demonstrated similar safety as assessed by spontaneous reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg provided comparable efficacy over 6 weeks, and both were significantly more efficacious than placebo. The medications demonstrated similar safety compared to one another and placebo. The primary limitations of these studies were that they were only 6 weeks long and were powered for efficacy. Therefore, conclusions about long-term safety cannot be inferred.

Osteoarthritis in older adults: current treatments

Although there is no cure for osteoarthritis, numerous treatments are available for symptom relief. Pharmacological treatments primarily focus on pain relief; however, in older adults there is continuing concern related to the risk of side effects and interactions with other medications. In contrast, non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, joint protection, and stress reduction, provide symptom relief with few side effects. In addition, alternative treatments such as nutritional supplements, herbal preparations, acupuncture, and tai chi are being investigated for their efficacy. Nurses should encourage patients to use a combination of treatments that provide optimum symptom relief with the fewest side effects.

Need for common internal controls when assessing the relative efficacy of pharmacologic agents using a meta-analytic approach: case study of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of common internal controls in a meta-analysis of the relative efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors (coxibs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline and US Food and Drug Administration electronic databases was performed to identify randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of coxibs (etoricoxib, celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib) in patients with hip and/or knee OA. The effect size for coxibs and common active internal controls (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], naproxen) were determined by the mean changes from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscores as compared with placebo.

RESULTS

The effect size for all coxib groups combined (0.44) indicated greater efficacy as compared with placebo, but significant heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) was observed. Rofecoxib at dosages of 12.5 mg/day and 25 mg/day and etoricoxib at a dosage of 60 mg/day had similar effect sizes (0.68 and 0.73, respectively), but these effect sizes were comparatively greater than those for both celecoxib at dosages of 200 mg/day and 100 mg twice daily or valdecoxib at a dosage of 10 mg/day (0.26 and 0.16, respectively). The effect sizes for NSAIDs or naproxen versus placebo, as determined using data from rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials, were consistently higher than the effect sizes derived from trials of celecoxib/valdecoxib. Significant heterogeneity was present in the overall effect size for NSAIDs (P = 0.007) and naproxen (P = 0.04) groups based on data available from all coxib trials.

CONCLUSION

Coxibs and common active internal controls showed larger effect sizes versus placebo in the rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials than in the celecoxib/valdecoxib trials. These findings suggest systematic differences among published coxib trials and emphasize the need for direct-comparison trials. In the absence of such trials, common internal controls should be assessed when performing indirect meta-analytic comparisons.

Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Editor's note: The anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market at the end of September 2004 after it was shown that long-term use (greater than 18 months) could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Further information is available at www.vioxx.com. Osteoarthritis is a chronic disease of the joints, characterised by joint pain, stiffness and loss of physical function. Its onset is age-related and occurs usually between the ages of 50 and 60. It is the commonest cause of disability in those aged over 65, with OA of the knee and/or hip affecting over 20 per cent of the elderly population.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the efficacy and safety of rofecoxib in the management of OA by systematic review of available evidence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases up to August 2004: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. Comparable trials were pooled using fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs were included. The comparators were placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, nimesulide, nabumetone, paracetamol, celecoxib and Arthrotec. The evidence reviewed indicated that rofecoxib was more effective than placebo (patient global response RR 1.75 95% CI: 1.35, 2.26) but was associated with more adverse events (RR 1.32 95% CI 1.11, 1.56). There were no consistent differences in efficacy between rofecoxib and any of the active comparators at equivalent doses. Endoscopic studies indicated that compared to ibuprofen 800 mg three times a day, rofecoxib caused fewer erosions and gastric ulcers at doses of 25mg and 50mg; the difference in duodenal ulcers was evident only at a dose of 25mg. Rofecoxib 50mg also caused more endoscopically observed ulcers greater than rofecoxib 25mg (RR 2.48 CI: 1.21, 5.11). Very few of the trials reported overall rates of GI adverse events although rofecoxib was found to cause fewer GI events than naproxen. Only one of the nine trials comparing rofecoxib to celecoxib reported on the overall rates of GI events and this was a comparison of the higher recommended dose of rofecoxib with the lower recommended dose of celecoxib. Similarly, the three trials in older hypertensive patients that examined the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib and celecoxib used non-comparable doses; the results of these studies indicated that rofecoxib caused more patients to have oedema and a clinically significant increase in systolic blood pressure. This difference between rofecoxib and celecoxib was not evident in studies conducted in more general populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib was voluntarily withdrawn from global markets in October 2004 therefore there are no implications for practice concerning its use. There remains a number of questions over both the benefits and risks associated with Cox II selective agents and further work is ongoing.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, in osteoarthritic knee pain: meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the analgesic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs), in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials.

STUDIES REVIEWED

23 trials including 10 845 patients, median age of 62.5 years. 7807 patients received adequate doses of NSAIDs and 3038 received placebo. The mean weighted baseline pain score was 64.2 mm on 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), and average duration of symptoms was 8.2 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Change in overall intensity of pain.

RESULTS

Methodological quality of trials was acceptable, but 13 trials excluded patients before randomisation if they did not respond to NSAIDs. One trial provided long term data for pain that showed no significant effect of NSAIDs compared with placebo at one to four years. The pooled difference for pain on visual analogue scale in all included trials was 10.1 mm (95% confidence interval 7.4 to 12.8) or 15.6% better than placebo after 2-13 weeks. The results were heterogeneous, and the effect size for pain reduction was 0.32 (0.24 to 0.39) in a random effects model. In 10 trials that did not exclude non-responders to NSAID treatment the results were homogeneous, with an effect size for pain reduction of 0.23 (0.15 to 0.31).

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs can reduce short term pain in osteoarthritis of the knee slightly better than placebo, but the current analysis does not support long term use of NSAIDs for this condition. As serious adverse effects are associated with oral NSAIDs, only limited use can be recommended.

Effets rénaux et cardiovasculaires des anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens et des coxibs

HYPERKALIEMIA AND RENAL FAILURE: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIs) may induce hyperkaliemia and renal failure. With regard to these complications, the notion of a risk factor is fundamental. Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (Cox-2) do not provide any notable advantages with regard to the incidence of hyperkaliemia and renal failure. OEDEMA AND BLOOD PRESSURE: The NSAIs provoke salt-water retention which is responsible for oedema in 2 to 5% of patients (here again the notion of a risk factor is important). The salt-water retention is implied in the increase in blood pressure and the decompensation of heart failure. It has been shown that the incidence of oedema and the increase in blood pressure was significantly reduced with celecoxib compared with rofecoxib. This might have a crucial impact on the mean and long term follow-up of cardiovascular risk in these patients.

CARDIOVASCULAR RISK

The results of the VIGOR study that demonstrated an increase in risk of myocardial infarction with rofecoxib, can probably be explained by an anti-thrombotic effect of naproxene, the high dose of rofecoxib used, the type of patients included or the fact that aspirin had been contraindicated. A recent study suggested that the cardiovascular risk was greater with rofecoxib than with celecoxib and with NSAIs when the dose of rofecoxib used was greater than 25mg/day. In this case control study, the cardiovascular risk was identical with celecoxib and NSAIs, whatever the dose used, but increased with a relative risk rate of 1.7 with the doses of rofecoxib greater than 50mg/day. In cases treated with aspirin Some NSAIs can reduce the anti-aggregant effects of aspirin whereas this effect is not observed with Cox-2 selective inhibitors. Hence, the latter should be the pharmacological agents of choice in patients treated with aspirin.

Comparing the efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2-specific inhibitors in treating osteoarthritis: appropriate trial design considerations and results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of the cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2)-specific inhibitors celecoxib and rofecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study, 475 patients with OA of the knee received either celecoxib 200 mg/day (n = 189), rofecoxib 25 mg/day (n = 190), or placebo (n = 96) for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline, week 3, and week 6 (or at the time of early termination).

RESULTS

In primary measures of efficacy (OA pain score on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and total domain score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy. At week 6, celecoxib was associated with a 34-mm mean improvement on the VAS for OA pain, compared with 31.6 mm for rofecoxib and 21.2 mm for placebo. The difference between celecoxib and rofecoxib was -2.5 mm, with an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of 2.7 mm and within the prespecified definition of noninferiority. Secondary measures of efficacy showed similar results. All differences in primary and secondary measures of efficacy between the 2 active treatments and placebo were statistically significant (P < 0.02), whereas all of the comparisons of efficacy between celecoxib and rofecoxib met the predefined criteria for noninferiority. All treatments were well tolerated throughout the study, with similar proportions of patients withdrawing due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day are equally efficacious in treating the signs and symptoms of OA.

Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor treatment of older osteoarthritis patients

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are often prescribed to treat osteoarthritis. Two cyclooxygenase isoenzymes prompted the development selective COX-2 inhibitors. The development, efficacy, and toxicity of COX-2 inhibitor treatment of osteoarthritis are summarized.

Comparison of Changes in Blood Pressure Measurements and Antihypertensive Therapy in Older, Hypertensive, Ambulatory Care Patients Prescribed Celecoxib or Rofecoxib

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if changes in blood pressure and changes in class or dosing of antihypertensive drugs were significantly different in patients treated with celecoxib versus rofecoxib, two cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Thirty-one ambulatory care practices that shared an electronic medical record.

PATIENTS

Nine hundred sixty men and women over age 55 years with stable hypertension.

INTERVENTION

Patients had to have at least a 30-day supply of celecoxib or rofecoxib (any dose) prescribed between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were followed for 6 months, and logistic regression and survival models were used to compare outcomes between groups while adjusting for confounders. Baseline characteristics of 517 patients receiving celecoxib and 443 receiving rofecoxib were similar. No significant differences were observed, regardless of the COX-2 inhibitor prescribed, in the proportion of patients whose systolic blood pressure increased by 20 mm Hg, whose diastolic blood pressure increased by 15 mm Hg, or who were prescribed a new class of antihypertensive drug. Compared with patients taking celecoxib, those taking rofecoxib were significantly more likely (odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.09-2.60) to have had the dosage of their antihypertensive drug increased and also the dosage increased sooner (p<0.05). New-onset cardiac and renal comorbidity, number of physician visits, and changes in body weight and laboratory values were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in blood pressure changes or in the proportion of patients who were prescribed a new class of antihypertensive drug were found between rofecoxib- and celecoxib-treated patients. However, significantly more rofecoxib-treated patients had the dosage of their existing antihypertensive drug increased compared with those receiving celecoxib.

A retrospective review of the effect of COX-2 inhibitors on blood pressure change

The objective of this study was to compare the difference between celecoxib and rofecoxib on blood pressure change. A retrospective review of medical records where the mean blood pressure in a 90-day period before and after start of the cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, celecoxib, and rofecoxib was compared. Data were abstracted from 249 patient records, of which 109 were included. The mean systolic blood pressures at baseline were comparable at 134.14 mm Hg and 134.05 mm Hg for the celecoxib (n = 52) and rofecoxib groups (n = 57), respectively (P = NS). A nonsignificant decrease in systolic blood pressure was observed for the celecoxib group (-1.15 mm Hg), while a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure was seen in the rofecoxib group (4.76 mm Hg, P = 0.044). The mean diastolic blood pressures at baseline were not significantly different between the two groups, and changes in the postperiod were also not statistically different compared with baseline values. The average total daily dose of COX-2 inhibitor was 219.2 mg for celecoxib and 25.23 mg for rofecoxib. A post hoc analysis of patients aged 65 years and older showed that the mean systolic blood pressure in the rofecoxib group increased by 7.37 mm Hg (P = 0.016), while there was an insignificant decrease for the celecoxib group (-1.94 mm Hg). This study showed that there were no significant changes in blood pressure after celecoxib initiation. While in the rofecoxib group, there was a significant increase in systolic blood pressure with an even greater increase for patients aged 65 years and older.

A model analysis of costs of blood pressure destabilization and edema associated with rofecoxib and celecoxib among older patients with osteoarthritis and hypertension in a Medicare Choice population

BACKGROUND

Economic analyses consider all costs relevant to the use of a particular treatment or treatments. Recently, head-to-head, randomized, controlled trials have shown a significantly higher incidence of blood pressure (BP) destabilization and clinically significant edema with rofecoxib than with celecoxib among older, hypertensive patients with osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to estimate the COX-2 specific inhibitor medication costs, in addition to the costs of drugs and physicians' fees, for BP destabilization and clinically significant edema associated with the use of rofecoxib 25 mg QD and celecoxib 200 mg QD in patients with OA and hypertension in a Medicare Choice population (aged > or = 65 years).

METHODS

A decision analysis model was constructed to determine the costs (from the payer's perspective) of treating patients in this population with either of the 2 regimens for 6 weeks. The analysis used pooled data from 2 recent, independently conducted, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials of OA patients aged > or = 65 years with treated hypertension who received either celecoxib 200 mg QD or rofecoxib 25 mg QD for 6 weeks. In the individual trials, rofecoxib was associated with significantly higher rates of destabilized BP (P < 0.032 and P < 0.001) and edema (P < 0.01 and P = 0.045) than celecoxib.

RESULTS

For a 100,000-member Medicare Choice population, an estimated 25,630 persons would have OA and hypertension (stages I-III), and an estimated 5126 of these patients would use celecoxib or rofecoxib. The estimated costs were 33,938 dollars (6.2%) higher if all hypertensive patients with OA were treated with rofecoxib rather than celecoxib for 6 weeks. The cost per day of use was 0.16 dollars less with celecoxib, and per-patient, per-month costs were 4.79 dollars lower.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib was a less costly treatment option than rofecoxib among OA patients with hypertension aged > or = 65 years, based on our model of the direct costs of COX-2 specific inhibitor therapy combined with those associated with physician monitoring and treatment of edema and BP destabilization.

Pathophysiology and first-line treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis (OA) and the various treatment modalities, focusing specifically on acetaminophen (APAP), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors as the primary treatment options.

DATA SOURCES

Primary literature and tertiary references were identified by a MEDLINE search (1966-March 2001) and through other secondary sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

After evaluating the articles and references identified from the data sources, all the information that was judged relevant by the reviewers was included in the review article.

DATA SYNTHESIS

OA is the most common joint disorder worldwide. Current research suggests that factors such as inflammation and changes in subchondral bone may play a larger role in the pathophysiology than previously thought. With this research and the development of COX-2 inhibitors, selecting the medication of choice for OA has become difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

More research needs to be done before the pathophysiology of OA can be clearly determined. In the meantime, treatment should be based on clinical data and patient response. Studies have shown that APAP and NSAIDs have comparable efficacy, as do traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. APAP is associated with fewer toxicities than are the traditional NSAIDs. Due to their mechanism of action, the new COX-2 inhibitors should result in fewer adverse effects compared with traditional NSAIDs, but evidence from clinical trials has not been conclusive. Therefore, APAP should still be considered the drug of choice for OA.

Selective Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 Inhibitors and Myocardial Infarction

There are concerns that selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors may be prothrombotic and increase the risk of myocardial infarction. This has largely arisen because of an unexpected finding of a higher rate of myocardial infarction in patients receiving rofecoxib compared with patients receiving naproxen in a study of gastrointestinal toxicity. The results of this study, a similar study of celecoxib versus ibuprofen or diclofenac, and data obtained from a meta-analysis of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) primary prevention trials suggest that differences in the rates of myocardial infarction between rofecoxib and naproxen may have been due to an unexpectedly low rate of myocardial infarction in patients receiving naproxen. However, population surveillance data also suggest that rofecoxib may be associated with a greater risk of myocardial infarction than celecoxib and certain nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The magnitude of this increase in risk, if real, is uncertain but it is likely to be relatively small in patients for whom cardiovascular prophylaxis with aspirin is not indicated. Patients who require nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy for arthritis and who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease should receive aspirin, probably in conjunction with selective COX-2 inhibitor therapy, as the risk of gastrointestinal ulceration may be lower than for aspirin plus a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. In patients who do not require aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events, the lower risk of gastrointestinal ulceration associated with COX-2 inhibitor compared with non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs would be expected to outweigh any increase in the risk of myocardial infarction, if one exists.