Valdecoxib is associated with improved dyspepsia-related health compared with nonspecific NSAIDs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis

A comparative study of the efficacy of NAXOZOL compared to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

Objective

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) can minimize the gastrointestinal complications related to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use. NAXOZOL is a new combination formulation designed to provide sequential delivery of a non-enteric-coated, immediate-release esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate 20 mg mantle followed by an enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg core. However, there have been no studies comparing NAXOZOL to celecoxib with respect to gastrointestinal tract protection and pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis. This study was undertaken to compare the effects of NAXOZOL and celecoxib with respect to gastrointestinal tract protection and pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis.

Methods

The randomized enrolled patients were divided into two treatment groups: a NAXOZOL group and a celecoxib group. All participants received treatments (NAXOZOL, 500/20 mg (naproxen 500 mg, esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate 20 mg) twice per day versus celecoxib, 200 mg daily) on a 1:1 allocation basis for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ) score used for non-inferiority testing. Secondary outcome measures included the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, European Quality of Life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scale and the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS). Other outcome measures included the use of supplementary or rescue drugs, and the incidence of adverse events.

Results

The baseline-adjusted LDQ scores immediately after 12 weeks of treatment in NAXOZOL group were not inferior to those in celecoxib group. The overall change in the baseline-adjusted GSRS score, VAS score, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS was not different between the two groups. The usage of supplementary drugs and the drug-related incidence of adverse events were not different. However, the days to use rescue drug were longer in celecoxib group than in NAXOZOL group.

Conclusion

NAXOZOL was not inferior to celecoxib in protecting the gastrointestinal tract and providing pain relief in patients with osteoarthritis.

A fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium has comparable upper gastrointestinal tolerability to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: results from two randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are associated with poor upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability and increased ulcer risk, but patient adherence to gastroprotective co-therapy is frequently inadequate. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg was evaluated: efficacy is reported by Hochberg et al. (Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:1243-53); tolerability findings are reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS. In two 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase III studies (PN400-307 and PN400-309), patients aged ≥ 50 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis randomly (2:2:1) received naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium BID, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo. Tolerability end-points included: modified Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (mSODA); heartburn severity; and UGI adverse events (AEs). RESULTS. Overall, 619 (PN400-307) and 615 (PN400-309) patients were randomized; mSODA scores improved (baseline to week 12) in each group, with no significant treatment differences between naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib (95% CIs: PN400-307: -0.4, 1.9; PN400-309: -1.8, 0.6). Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium-treated patients reported significantly more heartburn-free days versus celecoxib (95% CIs: PN400-307: 2.1, 12.7; PN400-309: 2.5, 13.4). UGI AE incidence (PN400-307: 17.3%; PN400-309: 20.3%) was similar between treatment groups. UGI AEs resulted in few discontinuations (< 4%, either study). CONCLUSIONS. Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium has comparable UGI tolerability to celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

Modified Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment pain scale: a new tool for measuring upper abdominal pain in osteoarthritis patients taking NSAIDs

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the electronically administered modified Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (mSODA) pain scale, a six-item measure of upper abdominal pain intensity, for daily use in osteoarthritis patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

METHODS

Once the mSODA pain scale was isolated, cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 30) were used to examine its appropriateness in the target population. Following administration of the instrument in two Phase III pivotal trials, the data were analyzed to examine reliability, validity, responsiveness, and the minimal important difference.

RESULTS

Using a subset of trial data (n = 90 patients), the mSODA pain scale proved to be a unidimensional, highly internally consistent instrument (α = 0.93) with good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.77). Construct validity was established via moderate correlations with other similar patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, known-groups validity demonstrated that the mSODA pain scale could distinguish between subjects who did and did not report gastrointestinal symptoms and antacid use (both P values ≤ 0.05). The mSODA pain scale was also responsive to change in heartburn at weeks 6 and 12 (Guyatt's statistic = 1.7 and 2.6, respectively), and the minimal important difference obtained via ½ SD was 5.7 (range 2-47).

CONCLUSION

This research suggests that the mSODA pain scale is both feasible and valid for assessing dyspepsia in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for relief of symptoms of osteoarthritis.

Dyspepsia as an adverse effect of drugs

Drugs are frequently implicated as a possible cause in new onset dyspeptic symptoms and few drugs are free of this suspicion. Nausea, anorexia, abdominal pain and dyspepsia make up between one-tenth and one-third of reported adverse reactions but they are all so common, both in the background population and among patients, that they are frequently attributed to an illness rather than to medications. No symptom or clinical sign is pathognomonic for adverse drug effects, maybe with the exception of vomiting. Dyspepsia is a common reporting in placebo-arms of treatment trials. Owing to the high background incidence of dyspepsia, it is difficult to discern between spontaneous and true drug-related dyspepsia. The mechanisms by which a drug causes dyspepsia are often unknown even though some drugs are known to cause direct mucosal injury. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics are common causes of drug-related dyspepsia.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The comparative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was determined.

METHODS

The results of studies of a suitable size in colonic adenoma and arthritis-that had been published in English and from which crude data about MIs could be extracted-were evaluated. Medline, Embase and Cinahl (2000-2006) databases, as well as published bibliographies, were used as data sources. Systematic reviews examined MI risks in case-control and cohort studies, as well as in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

14 case-control studies (74 673 MI patients, 368 968 controls) showed no significant association of NSAIDs with MI in a random-effects model (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.37) and a small risk of MI in a fixed-effects model (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35). Sensitivity analyses showed higher risks of MI in large European studies involving matched controls. Six cohort studies (387 983 patient years, 1 120 812 control years) showed no significant risk of MI with NSAIDs (RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.07); the risk was higher with rofecoxib (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.34) but not with any other NSAIDs. Four RCTs of NSAIDs in colonic adenoma (6000 patients) showed an increased risk of MI (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01). Fourteen RCTs in arthritis (45 425 patients) showed more MIs with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs (Peto OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4), but fewer serious upper gastrointestinal events (Peto OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53).

CONCLUSION

The overall risk of MI with NSAIDs and cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs was small; rofecoxib showed the highest risk. There was an increased MI risk with cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific drugs compared with NSAIDs, but less serious upper gastrointestinal toxicity.

Assessment of upper gastrointestinal safety of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal safety of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitors versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has not been assessed in trials that simulate standard clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the effects of these drugs on gastrointestinal outcomes in a population that includes patients taking gastrointestinal protective therapy.

METHODS

A prespecified pooled intent-to-treat analysis of three double-blind randomised comparisons of etoricoxib (60 or 90 mg daily) and diclofenac (150 mg daily) in 34 701 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis was done for upper gastrointestinal clinical events (bleeding, perforation, obstruction, or ulcer) and the subset of complicated events (perforation, obstruction, witnessed ulcer bleeding, or significant bleeding). We also assessed such outcomes in patients who were taking concomitant proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or low-dose aspirin. These trials are registered with , with the numbers , , and .

FINDINGS

Overall upper gastrointestinal clinical events were significantly less common with etoricoxib than with diclofenac (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.83; p=0.0001). There were significantly fewer uncomplicated gastrointestinal events with etoricoxib than there were with diclofenac (0.57, 0.45-0.74; p<0.0001); there was no difference in complicated events (0.91, 0.67-1.24; p=0.561). PPIs were used concomitantly for at least 75% of the study period by 13 862 (40%) and low-dose aspirin by 11 418 (33%) patients; treatment effects did not differ significantly in these individuals.

INTERPRETATION

There were significantly fewer upper gastrointestinal clinical events with the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib than with the traditional NSAID diclofenac due to a decrease in uncomplicated events, but not in the more serious complicated events. The reduction in uncomplicated events with etoricoxib is maintained in patients treated with PPIs and is also observed with regular low-dose aspirin use.

A comparison of valdecoxib and naproxen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis symptoms

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of valdecoxib 10, 20, and 40 mg QD with that of placebo and naproxen 500 mg BID in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The overall safety and tolerability profiles of valdecoxib and naproxen were also compared.

METHODS

A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled study was performed in patients with adult-onset RA whose disease was in a flare state after discontinuing NSAIDs or other analgesics. Patients were randomly assigned to valdecoxib 10, 20, or 40 mg QD, naproxen 500 mg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy measures were the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% responder index (ACR-20), physicians' assessments of tender/painful joint count and swollen joint count, and patients' and physicians' global assessments of disease activity. Adverse events, clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed by the investigator and compared between treatment groups to evaluate overall tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 1093 patients were randomized to receive either valdecoxib 10 mg QD (n=226), valdecoxib 20 mg QD (n=219), valdecoxib 40 mg QD (n=209), naproxen 500 mg BID (n=219), or placebo (n=220). At all time points, the proportion of ACR-20 responders was significantly higher in the valdecoxib groups than the placebo group at weeks 2 (10 mg, P<0.001; 20 mg, P=0.008; 40 mg, P= 0.004), 6 (all, P<0.001), and 12 (10 mg, P=0.006; 20 mg, P=0.004; 40 mg, P<0.001). Similarly, at all time points, the proportion of ACR-20 responders was significantly higher in the naproxen 500-mg group than the placebo group (all time points, P<0.001). In addition, mean changes in the number of tender/painful joint counts were significantly greater in the valdecoxib groups than the placebo group at weeks 2 (all, P<0.001), 6 (10 mg, P=0.002; 20 and 40 mg, P<0.001), and 12 (10 mg, P=0.004; 20 mg, P= 0.012; 40 mg, P<0.001). Naproxen treatment was also associated with greater reductions in tender/painful joint count than placebo (all, P<0.001). Mean changes in swollen joint count decreased at all time points in all groups, with significantly greater changes in the valdecoxib and naproxen treatment groups than the placebo group (valdecoxib 20 and 40 mg: week 6, P= 0.014 and P=0.003, respectively; naproxen: week 2, P=0.014; week 6, P=0.015; week 12, P=0.030). Physicians' global assessments of disease activity scores were significantly lower in the valdecoxib (10 mg: weeks 2 and 6, P<0.001; week 12, P=0.001; 20 and 40 mg: all weeks, P<0.001) and naproxen (all time points, P<0.001) treatment groups than the placebo group. Adverse events were reported by 45.5% patients in the placebo group, 51.8% in the valdecoxib 10 mg QD group, 58.0% in the valdecoxib 20 mg QD group, 56.9% in the valdecoxib 40 mg QD group, and 62.6% in the naproxen 500 mg BID treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Valdecoxib 10, 20, and 40 mg QD were efficacious for treating the signs and symptoms of RA in these patients. The efficacy of valdecoxib 20 and 40 mg QD was not significantly different from that of naproxen 500 mg BID. Valdecoxib was generally well tolerated in this study.