Lumiracoxib is effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a 13 week, randomised, double blind study versus placebo and celecoxib

Lessons from 20 years with COX-2 inhibitors: Importance of dose-response considerations and fair play in comparative trials

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX), which forms prostaglandins involved in pain and inflammation. COX inhibitors have analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, but also increase risks for gastrointestinal ulcers, bleeding, and renal and cardiovascular adverse events. Identification of two isoforms of COX, COX-1 and COX-2, led to the development of selective COX-2 inhibitors, which were launched as having fewer gastrointestinal side effects since gastroprotective prostaglandins produced via COX-1 are spared. The balance between COX-1 mediated prothrombotic thromboxane and COX-2 mediated antithrombotic prostacyclin is important for thrombotic risk. An increased risk of suffering myocardial infarction and death with COX-2 inhibitor treatment is well established from clinical trials and observational research. Rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market for this reason, but the equally COX-2 selective etoricoxib has replaced it in Europe but not in the United States. The "traditional" NSAID diclofenac is as COX-2 selective as celecoxib and increases cardiovascular risk dose dependently. COX inhibitor dosages should be lower in osteoarthritis than in rheumatoid arthritis. Randomized trials comparing COX-2 inhibitors with NSAIDs have exaggerated their gastrointestinal benefits by using maximal NSAID doses regardless of indication, and/or hidden the cardiovascular risk by comparing with COX-2 selective diclofenac instead of low-dose ibuprofen or naproxen. Observational studies show increased cardiovascular risks within weeks of treatment with COX-2 inhibitors and high doses of NSAIDs other than naproxen, which is the safest alternative. COX inhibitors are symptomatic drugs that should be used intermittently at the lowest effective dosage, especially among individuals with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Can Medical Cannabis Therapies be Cost-Effective in the Non-Surgical Management of Chronic Knee Pain?

Introduction:

Chronic knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition, which usually leads to decreased quality of life and a substantial financial burden. Various non-surgical treatments have been developed to relieve pain, restore function and delay surgical intervention. Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging supporting its use for chronic pain conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MC compared to current non-surgical therapies for chronic knee pain conditions.

Methods:

We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian, single payer perspective and compared various MC therapies (oils, soft gels and dried flowers at different daily doses) to bracing, glucosamine, pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. We estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with each treatment over 1 year and calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using both the mean and median estimates for costs and utilities gained across the range of reported values. The final ICURs were compared to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $66 714, $133 428 and $200 141 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY gained.

Results:

Regardless of the estimates used (mean or median), both MC oils and soft gels at both the minimal and maximal recommended daily doses were cost-effective compared to all current knee pain therapies at the lowest WTP threshold. Dried flowers were only cost-effective up to a certain dosage (0.75 and 1 g/day based on mean and median estimates, respectively), but all dosages were cost-effective when the WTP was increased to $133 428/QALY gained.

Conclusion:

Our study showed that MC may be a cost-effective strategy in the management of chronic knee pain; however, the evidence on the medical use of cannabis is limited and predominantly low-quality. Additional trials on MC are definitely needed, specifically in patients with chronic knee pain.

Women With Osteoarthritis Are at Increased Risk of Ischemic Stroke: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is more prevalent in women with age. Comorbidities are prevalent in OA patients. In this study, we conducted a follow-up study to evaluate whether women with OA are at an increased risk of ischemic stroke using insurance claims data of Taiwan.

Methods

We identified 13,520 women with OA aged 20–99 newly diagnosed in 2000–2006 and 27,033 women without OA for comparison, frequency matched by age and diagnosis date. Women with baseline history of hypertension and other disorders associated with stroke were excluded for this study. Incident ischemic stroke was assessed by the end of 2013. A nested case-control analysis was used to identify factors associated with the stroke in the OA cohort.

Results

The incidence rate of ischemic stroke in the OA cohort was 1.5-fold greater than that in comparisons (1.93 versus 1.26 per 1,000 person-years), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.66). The nested case-control analysis showed that stroke cases were twice as likely to develop hypertension during the follow-up period than controls without stroke. The ischemic stroke risk was significantly associated with hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37–2.46) and atrial fibrillation (OR 2.25; 95% CI, 1.24–4.09). Ischemic stroke was not associated with the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin.

Conclusion

Women with OA are at an elevated risk of ischemic stroke. A close monitoring of hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and other stroke related comorbidities is required for stroke prevention for OA patients.

Efficacy and safety of combination of curcuminoid complex and diclofenac versus diclofenac in knee osteoarthritis: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of combination of curcuminoid complex and diclofenac vs diclofenac alone in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

In this randomized trial, 140 patients of knee OA received either curcuminoid complex 500 mg (BCM-95) with diclofenac 50 mg 2 times daily or diclofenac 50 mg alone 2 times daily for 28 days. Patients were assessed at baseline, day 14 and day 28. Primary efficacy measures were Knee injury and OA outcome score (KOOS) subscale at day 14 and day 28. Anti-ulcer effect and patient-physician's global assessment of therapy at day 28 were included as secondary endpoints. Safety after treatment was evaluated by recording adverse events and laboratory investigations.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed improvement in primary endpoints at each evaluation visit. Patients receiving curcuminoid complex plus diclofenac showed significantly superior improvement in KOOS subscales, viz. pain and quality of life at each study visit (P < .001) when compared to diclofenac. Less number of patients required rescue analgesics in curcuminoid complex plus diclofenac group (3%) compared to diclofenac group (17%). The number of patients who required histamine 2 (H2) blockers was significantly less in curcuminoid complex plus diclofenac group compared to diclofenac group (6% vs 28%, respectively; P < .001). Adverse effects were significantly less in curcuminoid complex plus diclofenac group (13% vs 38% in diclofenac group; P < .001). Patient's and physician's global assessment of therapy favored curcuminoid complex plus diclofenac than diclofenac.

CONCLUSION

Combination of curcuminoid complex and diclofenac showed a greater improvement in pain and functional capacity with better tolerability and could be a better alternative treatment option in symptomatic management of knee OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN10074826.

The efficacy of celecoxib for pain management of arthroscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of celecoxib for pain management of arthroscopy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess if celecoxib before the surgery decreases postoperative pain intensity of arthroscopy.

METHODS

We search PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of celecoxib versus placebo on pain control of arthroscopy.

RESULTS

Five RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Celecoxib is administered at 200 mg or 400 mg dosage before the surgery. Overall, compared with control group for arthroscopy, preemptive celecoxib has remarkably positive impact on pain scores at 2 to 6 hours (standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.95 to -0.36; P < .0001) and 24 hours after the surgery (SMD = -1.26; 95% CI = -1.83 to -0.70; P < 0.0001), analgesic consumption (SMD  = -2.73; 95% CI = -5.17 to -0.28; P = .03), as well as the decrease in adverse events (risk ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.79; P = .001), but shows no obvious effect on first time for analgesic requirement (SMD  = 0.02; 95% CI = -0.22 to 0.26; P = .87), nausea, or vomiting (RR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.42 to 1.17; P = .18).

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib administered at 200 mg or 400 mg dosage before the surgery decreases postoperative pain intensity of arthroscopy.

Non-operative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and debilitating condition for which a wide range of non-surgical treatment options are available. Although there is plethora of literature investigating their safety and efficacy, for many treatment modalities, a consensus has not yet been reached concerning efficacy. Therefore, it is essential for practitioners to understand the risks and benefits of the available treatments for the successful management of knee OA. This study explored the efficacy of non-surgical treatment options for knee OA including: (I) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); (II) weight loss; (III) intra-articular injections; (IV) physical therapy; and (V) bracing.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review of studies between 1995 and 2018 was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed and EBSCO Host. Searches were performed using the following terms: total knee arthroplasty (TKA); cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors; bracing; physical therapy; weight loss; knee; treatment; therapeutics; OA; intra-articular injection; hyaluronic acid; corticosteroid; and alternatives. The initial search yielded 7,882 reports from which 545 relevant studies were identified. After full-text analysis, 43 studies were included for this analysis.

Results

NSAIDs are most effective when used continuously and may be used in conjunction with other forms of treatment for knee OA as they have been shown to provide some pain relief as well as functional improvements. Weight loss is a safe and effective way to improve knee pain, function, and stiffness without adverse effects. However, it can be very challenging for obese patients with knee OA due to their limited mobility and lack of adherence to a low-calorie diet. Intra-articular injections have had mixed results, with findings from recent studies indicating long-term outcomes to be equivocal. Physical therapy leads to significant improvements in pain and function. Decreased compliance with physical therapy is thought to be due to high copayments, pain with activities, lacks of transportation, and high time commitments. Brace modalities have demonstrated significant pain and functional improvements and prolongations of the time to TKA. Additionally, they limit the need for other treatment modalities which are associated with greater risks.

Conclusions

NSAIDs, weight loss, intraarticular injections, and physical therapy have all been shown to be effective non-surgical treatment options for knee OA. However, these options have some limitations, and are best when used in conjunction. Bracing for knee OA is a noninvasive, non-pharmacologic option which can significantly reduce pain and improve function with minimal adverse effects. Therefore, a combination of knee braces along with other non-operative modalities should be one mainstay of treatment in conjunction with other treatment modalities to reduce pain, improve function, stiffness, and mobility in knee OA.

Safety of Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Our aim was to assess the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with COX-2 inhibitors in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs, drug-related AEs and mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once).

Results

Database searches identified 2149 records from which, after exclusions, 40 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of COX-2 inhibitors in OA was associated with a significant increased risk of drug-related AEs compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.09–1.46; I² = 24%). The risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (including dyspepsia, gastritis and heartburn) was significantly increased with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03–1.38; I² = 0%), particularly for abdominal pain, which increased by 40% with COX-2 inhibitors (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; I² = 0%). The risk of hypertension increased by 45% overall (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01–2.10; I² = 25%); however, when rofecoxib was removed from the analysis the risk of hypertension in the COX-2 inhibitor group was no longer significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80–1.83; I² = 20%). The overall risk of heart failure and edema was increased by nearly 70% with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.22–2.31; 0%) and this level of risk did not change appreciably when rofecoxib was excluded (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29; 0%).

Conclusions

In our analysis, COX-2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain. We also found an increased risk of cardiovascular AEs with COX-2 inhibitors, namely hypertension, heart failure and edema.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-019-00664-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Safety and efficacy of curcumin versus diclofenac in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized open-label parallel-arm study

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of curcumin with those of diclofenac in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

In this randomized, open-label, parallel, active controlled clinical study, 139 patients with knee OA were randomly assigned to receive either a curcumin 500-mg (BCM-95^®) capsule three times daily or a diclofenac 50-mg tablet two times daily for 28 days. Patients underwent assessment at baseline and days 7, 14, and 28. The main outcome measure was severity of pain using visual analogue scale score at days 14 and 28. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (at days 14 and 28), anti-flatulent effect (at day 7), anti-ulcer effect, weight-lowering effect, and patient’s and physician’s global assessment of therapy at day 28 were included as secondary outcome measures. Safety after treatment was evaluated by recording adverse events and laboratory investigation.

Results

At days 14 and 28, patients receiving curcumin showed similar improvement in severity of pain and KOOS scale when compared with diclofenac, and the difference was not statistically significant. At day 7, the patients who received curcumin experienced a significantly greater reduction in the number of episodes of flatulence compared with diclofenac (P <0.01). At day 28, a weight-lowering effect (P <0.01) and anti-ulcer effect (P <0.01) of curcumin were observed. None of the patients required H2 blockers in the curcumin group, and 19 patients required H2 blockers in the diclofenac group (0% versus 28%, respectively; P <0.01). Adverse effects were significantly less in the curcumin group (13% versus 38% in the diclofenac group; P <0.01). Patient’s and physician’s global assessment of therapy was similar in the two treatment groups.

Conclusion

Curcumin has similar efficacy to diclofenac but demonstrated better tolerance among patients with knee OA. Curcumin can be an alternative treatment option in the patients with knee OA who are intolerant to the side effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN10074826. Registered 21 November 2017 - Retrospectively registered.

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.

Chondroitin sulfate efficacy versus celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis structural changes using magnetic resonance imaging: a 2-year multicentre exploratory study

Background

In osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, although chondroitin sulfate (CS) was found in a number of studies using radiography to have a structure-modifying effect, to date CS use is still under debate. A clinical study using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) is therefore of the utmost importance. Here we report data from a 24-month, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, comparative exploratory study of knee OA. The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of CS 1200 mg/day versus celecoxib 200 mg/day on cartilage volume loss (CVL) in the lateral compartment over time as measured by qMRI. Secondary endpoints included assessment of the OA structural changes and signs and symptoms of OA.

Methods

qMRI was performed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. CVL, bone marrow lesion size, and synovial thickness were evaluated using qMRI. The primary statistical analysis was carried out on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 138) using chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney, and Student’s t tests and analysis of covariance. Analyses were also conducted on the according-to-protocol (ATP; n = 120) population.

Results

In the adjusted mITT analysis, compared with celecoxib treatment, patients treated with CS had a significant reduced CVL at 24 months in the medial compartment (celecoxib –8.1 % ± 4.2, CS –6.3 % ± 3.2; p = 0.018) and medial condyle (–7.7 % ± 4.7, –5.5 % ± 3.9; p = 0.008); no significant effect was seen in the lateral compartment. In the ATP population, CS reduced CVL in the medial compartment at 12 months (celecoxib –5.6 % ± 3.0, CS –4.5 % ± 2.6; p = 0.049) and 24 months (celecoxib –8.4 % ± 4.2, CS –6.6 % ± 3.3; p = 0.021), and in the medial condyle at 24 months (celocoxib –8.1 % ± 4.7, CS –5.7 % ± 4.0; p = 0.010). A trend towards a statistically reduced synovial thickness (celecoxib +17.96 ± 33.73 mm, CS –0.66 ± 22.72 mm; p = 0.076) in the medial suprapatellar bursa was observed in CS patients. Both groups experienced a marked reduction in the incidence of patients with joint swelling/effusion and in symptoms over time. Data showed similar good safety profiles including cardiovascular adverse events for both drugs.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated, for the first time in a 2-year randomised controlled trial using qMRI, the superiority of CS over celecoxib at reducing CVL in knee OA patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01354145. Registered 13 May 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-016-1149-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of Lumiracoxib in Osteoarthritis: A Review of Nine Studies

Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor in development for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain. We reviewed nine clinical studies of 1 − 52 weeks' duration demonstrating the efficacy of lumiracoxib in OA. Male and female patients aged ≥ 18 years with primary OA of the hand, hip or knee received lumiracoxib, placebo or active comparators (diclofenac, celecoxib or rofecoxib). Lumiracoxib provided consistent reductions in OA pain intensity and improvements in the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status (assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire or the Australian/Canadian OA Hand Index). These results were superior to placebo and similar to the active comparators tested. In addition, lumiracoxib was consistently superior to placebo and generally similar to active comparators in terms of the new Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. These were used to provide a single measure of response to treatment, taking into account pain, the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status.

Comparative pain reduction of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids for knee osteoarthritis: systematic analytic review

OBJECTIVE

Summarize the comparative effectiveness of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in reducing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English between 1982 and 2015, evaluating oral NSAIDs or opioids for knee OA. Included studies were at least 8 weeks duration, conducted in Western Europe, the Americas, New Zealand, or Australia, and reported baseline and follow-up pain using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale (0-100, 100-worst). Effectiveness was evaluated as reduction in pain, accounting for study dropout and heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven treatment arms (nine celecoxib, four non-selective NSAIDs [diclofenac, naproxen, piroxicam], eleven less potent opioids [tramadol], and three potent opioids [hydromorphone, oxycodone]) from 17 studies were included. NSAID and opioid studies reported similar baseline demographics and efficacy withdrawal rates; NSAID studies reported lower baseline pain and toxicity withdrawal rates. Accounting for efficacy-related withdrawals, all drug classes were associated with similar pain reductions (NSAIDs: -18; less potent opioids: -18; potent opioids: -19). Meta-regression did not reveal differential effectiveness by drug class but found that study cohorts with a higher proportion of male subjects and worse mean baseline pain had greater pain reduction. Similarly, results of the network meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in WOMAC Pain reduction for the three analgesic classes.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs and opioids offer similar pain relief in OA patients. These data could help clinicians and patients discuss likely benefits of alternative analgesics.

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib Therapy in Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis in older individuals and is among the most prevalent and disabling chronic conditions worldwide.We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Studies were pooled, and mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Fifteen relevant articles were included for this meta-analysis study.We observed that osteoarthritis total score (MD = -4.41, 95% CI -7.27 to -1.55), pain subscale score (MD = -0.86, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.62), and function subscale score (MD = -2.90, 95% CI -5.12 to -0.67) in OA patients treatment with celecoxib was significantly improved than that with placebo. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs), SAEs, and discontinuations due to AEs; however, the incidence of gastrointestinal AEs in OA patients treatment with celecoxib is significantly higher than that with placebo. For AE, the incidence of abdominal pain in OA patients with celecoxib was significantly higher than that with placebo (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.40-3.58; P = 0.839, I = 0%). There was no significant difference in diarrhea, dyspepsia, headache, and nausea.This meta-analysis indicated that celecoxib treatment (200 mg orally once daily) led to significant improvement in the pain and function of osteoarthritis. However, compared with placebo control, celecoxib resulted in greater gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain after approximately 10 to 13 weeks of treatment. The current study, therefore, provides valuable information to help physicians make treatment decisions for their patients with OA.

Does flare trial design affect the effect size of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in symptomatic osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It is thought that the clinical trial benefits of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may relate to flare designs. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in NSAID (including cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors) response in osteoarthritis (OA) trials based on different designs.

METHODS

Systematic review was undertaken of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane library till February 2015. Randomised controlled trials assessing pain, function and/or stiffness following commencement of NSAIDs in flare and non-flare designs were eligible. Trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the effect sizes (ES) of NSAIDs for OA with flare versus non-flare trial designs.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies including 33 263 participants assessing 26 NSAIDs were included. Twenty-two (39%) were flare design, 24 (42%) were non-flare designs, 11 (19%) were possible flare designs. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in ES of NSAIDs versus placebo between flare and non-flare trial designs for absolute pain and function or stiffness at immediate-term (1 week), short-term (2-4 week) or longer-term (12-13 week) follow-up periods (p>0.05). However there was a lower ES for mean change in pain in flare and possible flare trials compared with non-flare trials at short-term follow-up (0.36 vs 0.69; p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous understanding, flare trial designs do not result in an increased treatment effect for NSAIDs in people with OA compared with non-flare design. Whether flare design influences other outcomes such as joint effusion remains unknown.

Recommendations for an update of the 2010 European regulatory guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and reflections about related clinically relevant outcomes: expert consensus statement

OBJECTIVE

The European Society on Clinical and Economic aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) organised a working group to evaluate the need for updating the current European guideline on clinical investigation of drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Areas of potential attention were identified and the need for modifications, update or clarification was examined. Proposals were then developed based on literature reviews and through a consensus process.

RESULTS

It was agreed that the current guideline overall still reflects the current knowledge in OA, although two possible modifications were identified. The first relates to the number and timing of measurements required as primary endpoints during clinical trials of symptom-relieving drugs, either drugs with rapid onset of action or slow acting drugs. The suggested modifications are intended to take into consideration the time related clinical need and expected time response to these drugs - i.e., a more early effect for the first category in addition to the maintenance of effect, a more continuous benefit over the long-term for the latter - in the timing of assessments. Secondly, values above which a benefit over placebo should be considered clinically relevant were considered. Based on literature reviews, the most consensual values were determined for primary endpoints of both symptom-relieving drugs (i.e., pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS)) and disease-modifying drugs (i.e., radiographic joint-space narrowing).

CONCLUSIONS

This working document might be considered by the European regulatory authorities in a future update of the guideline for the registration of drugs in OA.

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.

Efficacy of physical therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis

Background

Physical therapy for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE) often comprises movement therapies, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ECSWT), low level laser therapy (LLLT), low frequency electrical stimulation or pulsed electromagnetic fields. Still, only ECSWT and LLLT have been meta-analytically researched.

Methods

PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methodological quality of each study was rated with an adapted version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist. Pain reduction (the difference between treatment and control groups at the end of trials) and pain relief (the change in pain from baseline to the end of trials) were calculated with mean differences (MD) and 95 %-Confidence intervals (95 % CI).

Results

One thousand one hundred thirty eight studies were identified. One thousand seventy of those did not meet inclusion criteria. After full articles were retrieved 16 studies met inclusion criteria and 12 studies reported comparable outcome variables. Analyses were conducted for overall pain relief, pain relief during maximum handgrip strength tests, and maximum handgrip strength. There were not enough studies to conduct an analysis of physical function or other outcome variables.

Conclusions

Differences between treatment and control groups were larger than differences between treatments. Control group gains were 50 to 66 % as high as treatment group gains. Still, only treatment groups with their combination of therapy specific and non-therapy specific factors reliably met criteria for clinical relevance. Results are discussed with respect to stability and their potential meaning for the use of non-therapy specific agents to optimize patients’ gain.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0665-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison between 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID oral celecoxib in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis

This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of 100 mg BID and 200 mg QD oral celecoxib in the treatment of OA of the knee or hip. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through from inception to August 2014. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine direct and indirect evidences on treatment effectiveness and safety. A total of 24 RCTs covering 11696 patients were included. For the comparison in between the two dosage regimens, 100 mg BID oral celecoxib exhibited a greater probability to be the preferred one either in terms of pain intensity or function at the last follow-up time point. For total gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs), both of the two dosage regimens demonstrated a higher incidence compared to the placebo group. Further analyses of GI AEs revealed that only 200 mg QD was associated with a significantly higher risk of abdominal pain when compared with placebo. Furthermore, 100 mg BID showed a significantly lower incidence of skin AEs when compared with 200 mg QD and placebo. Maybe 100 mg BID should be considered as the preferred dosage regimen in the treatment of knee or hip OA.

The efficacy of duloxetine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids in osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ≥12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses.

Efficacy of celecoxib for pain management after arthroscopic surgery of hip: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled study

The present work was conducted to examine whether celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, 200 mg administered 1 h preoperatively to patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery reduces postoperative pain. Fifty-three patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive either 200 mg of celecoxib (Group I) or 200 mg of placebo (Group II) 1 h preoperatively. Narcotic use was monitored for 24 h, and time in recovery room was determined. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Short-Form 12 (SF-12), including a physical composite score (PCS) and a mental composite score (MCS), documented pain in recovery, 12 h postoperatively, and 24 h postoperatively. Moreover, time in recovery room was also investigated. We enrolled 27 patients in Group I and 26 patients in Group II. Groups were comparable for patient characteristics. No significant difference was detected in terms of VAS scores and SF-12 in recovery room. Statistically, patients in Group I showed significantly lower pain VAS scores at 12 and 24 h postoperatively. Patients taking celecoxib had significantly higher PCS at 12 and 24 h postoperatively. No difference occurred between groups for the MCS. Patients taking celecoxib also showed a significant reduction in postoperative narcotic consumption. The obtained results from the current study indicate that patients who took celecoxib 200 mg 1 h before arthroscopic hip surgery had a less painful and more rapid recovery. Celecoxib 200 mg as a single preoperative dose could be considered as part of a perioperative analgesic plan in arthroscopic hip surgery.

Lumiracoxib Does Not Affect the Ex Vivo Antiplatelet Aggregation Activity of Low-Dose Aspirin in Healthy Subjects

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects of concomitant low-dose aspirin and lumiracoxib in healthy subjects. Participants received lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (n = 14) or placebo (n = 14) for 11 days, with concomitant low-dose aspirin (75 mg once daily) from days 5 to 11. Ex vivo pharmacodynamic assessments included assays of platelet aggregation and urinary thromboxane and prostacyclin metabolite profile. Arachidonic acid-stimulated platelet aggregation was reduced from 76.3% on day 4 to 4.8% on day 11 in the placebo group and from 75.8% on day 4 to 5.1% on day 11 in the lumiracoxib group. Collagen-induced platelet aggregation was reduced from 77.5% on day 4 to 52.8% on day 11 in the placebo group and from 79.5% on day 4 to 55.9% on day 11 in the lumiracoxib group. Urinary thromboxane and prostacyclin were unaffected by lumiracoxib. In conclusion, concomitant lumiracoxib did not interfere with the cyclooxygenase-1-mediated antiplatelet effects of low-dose aspirin.

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.

Pharmacological validation of early and late phase of rat mono-iodoacetate model using the Tekscan system

BACKGROUND

Previous pharmacological validations of the rat mono-iodoacetate (MIA)-induced chronic joint pain model were mostly performed by measuring weight-bearing (WB) deficit with an incapacitance tester. However, conventional incapacitance testers have several drawbacks including restrain stress on animal and sole use of hind limbs WB.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to compare pharmacological sensitivity of the early (up to 1 week after MIA) versus late (between 2 and 4 weeks after MIA) phase of the rat MIA model using a highly sensitive tactile pressure measurement system (Tekscan(®)), which can measure weight borne by all four limbs and the tail in a non-restrained animal.

METHODS

The Tekscan(®) WB measurement system was used in MIA rats to examine the acute and chronic dosing effects of drugs that targeted different mechanisms. Electrophysiological recordings from joint afferents and biochemical analysis of synovial fluid were also performed.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone, duloxetine and morphine significantly alleviated WB deficits in the Tekscan(®) system during both early and late phase of the MIA model while celecoxib and naproxen alleviated WB deficit only during the early phase. Similarly, naproxen was able to inhibit spontaneous neuronal activity from MIA joint afferents only during the early phase. Finally, concentrations of prostaglandin E(2) in synovial fluid were elevated only during the early phase of the rat MIA model.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pharmacological validation studies using the Tekscan(®) system along with electrophysiological and biochemical results suggest different mechanisms for early and late phase of MIA-induced chronic joint pain in rat.

Cardiovascular safety of lumiracoxib: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in patients with osteoarthritis

Purpose

To re-evaluate the cardiovascular risk of lumiracoxib compared with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of lumiracoxib versus placebo or other NSAIDs in patients with osteoarthritis reported up to January 2010. Both published and unpublished trials were included. PubMed searches using predefined search criteria (lumiracoxib AND osteoarthritis, limits: none; COX-189 AND osteoarthritis, limits: none) were used to obtain the relevant published trials. Novartis granted explicit access to their company studies and the right to use these study reports for the purposes of publication in peer reviewed journals. Endpoints were the Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC) endpoint and individual cardiovascular endpoints.

Results

Meta-analysis of 6 trials of lumiracoxib versus placebo revealed no difference in cardiovascular outcomes. Meta-analysis of 12 trials of lumiracoxib versus other NSAIDs also revealed no difference. The pooled odds ratios were: 1.16 (95% CI 0.82, 1.63); 1.66 (95% CI 0.84, 3.29); 0.95 (95% CI 0.52, 1.76) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.60, 1.80) for the APTC endpoint, myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death respectively.

Conclusions

The results suggest that there were no significant differences in cardiovascular outcomes between lumiracoxib and placebo or between lumiracoxib and other NSAIDs in patients with osteoarthritis. Wide confidence intervals mean that further research is needed in this area to confirm these findings.

A hierarchy of patient-reported outcomes for meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials: empirical evidence from a survey of high impact journals

Objectives. To develop a prioritised list based on responsiveness for extracting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring pain and disability for performing meta-analyses in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A systematic search was conducted in 20 highest impact factor general and rheumatology journals chosen a priori. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials, using two or more PROs measuring pain and/or disability. Results. A literature search identified 402 publications and 38 trials were included, resulting in 54 randomised comparisons. Thirty-five trials had sufficient data on pain and 15 trials on disability. The WOMAC "pain" and "function" subscales were the most responsive composite scores. The following list was developed. Pain: (1) WOMAC "pain" subscale, (2) pain during activity (VAS), (3) pain during walking (VAS), (4) general knee pain (VAS), (5) pain at rest (VAS), (6) other composite pain scales, and (7) other single item measures. Disability: (1) WOMAC "function" subscale, (2) SF-36 "physical function" subscale, (3) SF-36 (Physical composite score), and (4) Other composite disability scores. Conclusions. As choosing the PRO most favourable for the intervention from individual trials can lead to biased estimates, using a prioritised list as developed in this study is recommended to reduce risk of biased selection of PROs in meta-analyses.

Efficacy of etoricoxib, celecoxib, lumiracoxib, non-selective NSAIDs, and acetaminophen in osteoarthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

Objective:

To compare the efficacy of etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, celecoxib, non-selective (ns) NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA)

Methods:

Randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the effects of acetaminophen 4000mg, diclofenac 150mg, naproxen 1000mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, celecoxib 100-400mg, lumiracoxib 100-400mg, and etoricoxib 30-60mg with treatment duration of at least two weeks were identified with a systematic literature search. The endpoints of interest were pain, physical function and patient global assessment of disease status (PGADS). Pain and physical function reported on different scales (VAS or LIKERT) were translated into effect sizes (ES). An ES 0.2 - 0.5 was defined as a “small” treatment effect, whereas ES of 0.5 – 0.8 and > 0.8 were defined as “moderate” and “large”, respectively. A negative effect indicated superior effects of the treatment group compared to the control group. Results of all trials were analyzed simultaneously with a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison.

Results:

There is a >95% probability that etoricoxib (30 or 60mg) shows the greatest improvement in pain and physical function of all interventions compared. ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.66 (95% Credible Interval -0.83; -0.49), -0.32 (-0.50; -0.14), -0.25 (-0.53; 0.03), and -0.17 (-0.41; 0.08), respectively. Regarding physical functioning, ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.61 (-0.76; -0.46), -0.27 (-0.43; -0.10), -0.20 (-0.47; 0.07), and -0.09 (- 0.33; 0.14) respectively. The greatest improvements in PGADS were expected with either etoricoxib or diclofenac.

Conclusion:

The current study estimated the efficacy of acetaminophen, nsNSAIDs, and COX-2 selective NSAIDs in OA and found that etoricoxib 30 mg is likely to result in the greatest improvements in pain and physical function. Differences in PGADS between interventions were smaller.

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.

Gait analysis and pain response of two rodent models of osteoarthritis

The purpose of this study was to compare the gait parameters recorded on the CatWalk and the mechanical sensitivity with von Frey filaments of two putative models of osteoarthritis over a one month period, and to evaluate the effect of celecoxib on these parameters. Animals underwent either a surgical sectioning of the anterior cruciate ligament with partial medial menisectomy (ACLT+pMMx) to create a joint instability model or received an intra-articular injection of monoiodoacetate (MIA) as a putative inflammatory joint pain model. Animals were assessed for four consecutive weeks and knee joints were then evaluated histologically. Spinal cord lumbar enlargements were harvested for selected neuropeptide analysis (substance P (SP) and calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP)). With the MIA model, significant changes persisted in selected dynamic gait parameters throughout the study in the injured limb as well as with the von Frey filaments. The ACLT+pMMx model in contrast showed no clear differential response between both hind limb for both gait parameters and pain-related behavior with von Frey filaments occurred only on the last day of the study. Neuropeptide analysis of spinal cord lumbar enlargements revealed a significant increase in CGRP concentration in both models and an increase in SP concentration only in the MIA model. Histological evaluation confirmed the presence of articular cartilage lesions in both models, but they were much more severe in the MIA model. Celecoxib had an effect on all selected gait parameters at the very beginning of the study and had an important alleviating effect on mechanical allodynia. These results suggest that the MIA model may be more appropriate for the evaluation of short term pain studies and that celecoxib may modulate mechanical allodynia through central sensitization mechanisms.

Influence of flare design on symptomatic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs' (NSAIDs) symptomatic efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) is often assessed in trials with a "flare design", i.e., including only patients with an increase in their pain after stopping their usual treatment (NSAIDs or analgesic).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of the "flare design" on NSAIDs apparent symptomatic efficacy in OA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

a systematic literature research was performed in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register up to March 2009. All randomized controlled trials comparing NSAIDs vs placebo symptomatic efficacy in hip, knee, or digital OA were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

efficacy was evaluated on pain (visual analog scale), and on function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index or Lequesne index). The magnitude of the treatment effect was evaluated by calculating Cohen's effect size (ES). Meta-analysis of ES according to flare design yes/no was performed.

RESULTS

Among the 343 identified studies, 33 (20,915 patients) were included: 27 (18,667 patients) vs 6 (2248 patients) respectively in the group with vs without "flare design". Populations were comparable in each group. ESs were, for pain, -0.66 (95% confidence interval, -0.71 to -0.61), vs -0.45 (-0.54 to -0.36) in the flare design vs "no flare design" group, and for function, -0.50 (-0.55 to -0.44) vs -0.25 (-0.36 to -0.14) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the flare design used in clinical trials evaluating NSAIDs results in a treatment effect of higher magnitude. These results should be considered when designing a trial and/or interpreting the results of a trial.

Effectiveness of subcutaneous injections of a cartilage preparation in osteoarthritis of the knee--a randomized, placebo controlled phase II study

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Articulatio Genus D5 (AG5), a cartilage preparation, is widely used within anthroposophic medicine to treat osteoarthritis of the knee (OA). To evaluate its efficacy 91 OA patients were randomized to receive either AG5 (46) or placebo (45) following a fully sequential study design. For a period of 4 weeks AG5 or placebo were injected subcutaneously 3 times a week in the predominantly affected knee. Outcome parameters were the Western Ontario and Mc. Masters University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and the use of concomitant pain medication during a follow up period of 2 months.

RESULTS

89 patients completed the study. After 4 weeks of treatment WOMAC pain scores were significantly reduced compared to baseline (mean from 5.1+/-1.8 to 3.2+/-2.2 with AG5 and from 4.3+/-1.5 to 3.0+/-1.8 with placebo, p<0.001) in both groups. This effect was maintained until follow up (mean 3.3+/-2.6 with AG5 and 3.2+/-2.4 with placebo). WOMAC function- and stiffness scores and use of concomitant pain medication were also significantly reduced. There was, however, no significant difference between AG5 and placebo (group difference after 4 weeks: -3.3, CI: -11.8 to 5.3, p=0.46, triangular test). After follow up, WOMAC scores were also not different between AG5 and placebo but the use of pain medication dropped significantly more in the AG5 group (p=0.036). Severe side effects did not occur, minor side effects in 2 patients (1 in each group) were related to the subcutaneous injection.

CONCLUSIONS

For the primary outcome parameter pain AG5 was not superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment but the equal reduction of pain in combination with higher reduction of pain medication suggests an effect of the preparation. The long term effect of AG5 on sparing pain medication should be further investigated.

A novel transdermal delivery system for the anti-inflammatory lumiracoxib: influence of oleic acid on in vitro percutaneous absorption and in vivo potential cutaneous irritation

Transdermal delivery of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be an interesting strategy for delivering these drugs to the diseased site, but it would be ineffective due to low skin permeability. We investigated whether oleic acid (OA), a lipid penetration enhancer in poloxamer gels named poloxamer-based delivery systems (PBDS), can improve lumiracoxib (LM) delivery to/through the skin. The LM partition coefficient (K) studies were carried out in order to evaluate the drug lipophilicity grade (K(octanol/buffer)), showing values >1 which demonstrated its high lipophilicity. Both in vitro percutaneous absorption and skin retention studies of LM were measured in the presence or absence of OA (in different concentrations) in PBDS using porcine ear skin. The flux of in vitro percutaneous absorption and in vitro retention of LM in viable epidermis increased in the presence of 10.0% (w/w) OA in 25.0% (w/w) poloxamer gel. In vivo cutaneous irritation potential was carried out in rabbits showing that this formulation did not provide primary or cumulative cutaneous irritability in animal model. The results showed that 25.0% poloxamer gel containing 10.0% OA is potential transdermal delivery system for LM.

Do COX-2 inhibitors raise blood pressure more than nonselective NSAIDs and placebo? An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both COX-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) and nonselective (ns)-NSAIDs elevate blood pressure (BP) and this may contribute to excess cardiovascular (CV) events. A number of recent large-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing coxibs (including newer agents, lumiracoxib and etoricoxib) to both ns-NSAIDs and placebo have been reported, permitting an update to earlier BP analyses of these agents.

DATA SOURCES/SYNTHESIS

Our search yielded 51 RCTs involving coxibs published before April 2008 with a total of 130 541 participants in which BP data were available. The Der Simonian and Laird random effects method for dichotomous variables was used to produce risk ratios (RR) for development of hypertension.

RESULTS

For coxibs versus placebo, there was a RR of 1.49 (1.18-1.88, P = 0.04) in the development of new hypertension. For coxibs versus ns-NSAIDs, the RR was 1.12 (0.93-1.35, P = 0.23). These results were mainly driven by rofecoxib, with a RR of 1.87 (1.63-2.14, P = 0.08) versus placebo, and etoricoxib, with a RR of 1.52 (1.39-1.66, P = 0.01) versus ns-NSAID.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of this updated meta-analysis, coxibs appear to produce greater hypertension than either ns-NSAIDs or placebo. However, this response was heterogeneous, with markedly raised BP associated with rofecoxib and etoricoxib, whereas celecoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib appeared to have little BP effect. The relationship of this increased risk of hypertension to subsequent adverse CV outcomes requires further investigation and prospective RCTs.

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.

Analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip requiring joint replacement surgery: a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy, noninferiority study

BACKGROUND

The hip is the second most common large joint that is affected by osteoarthritis (OA), with prevalence ranging from 3% to 11% in patients aged > or = 35 years. OA is often associated with significant pain, disability, and impaired quality of life. Treatment should be tailored according to the level of pain, disability, and handicap. Pharmacologic treatment options for hip OA include acetaminophen (recommended by the European League Against Rheumatism as a first-line treatment), NSAIDs such as diclofenac, and cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs such as celecoxib.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether celecoxib 200 mg QD is noninferior to diclofenac 50 mg TID in the treatment of OA of the hip.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy, noninferiority study conducted at 40 centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with OA flare at baseline (determined by visual analog scale [VAS] measurement of > or = 40 to < 90 mm and patient's and physician's global assessments of arthritis ratings of "poor" or "very poor") and awaiting joint replacement surgery were randomized to receive celecoxib QD or diclofenac TID. Patients were excluded if surgery was anticipated within 8 weeks. The United Kingdom National Health Service initiatives on waiting-list times caused a reduction in the number of potential patients available for participation. Therefore, the study protocol was amended such that change from baseline to week 6 (as opposed to week 12) in the patient's assessment of arthritis pain on walking, measured by VAS (0-100 mm), was the primary outcome. Primary analysis was carried out on the evaluable population (subjects with baseline and week 6 arthritis pain on walking VAS scores and no major protocol deviations). Celecoxib was declared noninferior to diclofenac if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (celecoxib vs diclofenac) in the mean change from baseline in VAS did not exceed 10 mm. Tolerability was assessed by the documentation of observed and volunteered adverse events (AEs), physical examination findings, sitting blood pressure, and pulse at screening and at the end of the study (week 12 or early withdrawal).

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients aged > or = 45 years were randomized to treatment. There were 126 patients in the celecoxib group and 123 patients in the diclofenac group. One patient in the celecoxib group did not receive any treatment and was excluded from analysis. Additionally, 54 patients in the celecoxib group and 45 patients in the diclofenac group discontinued treatment due to AEs and/or lack of treatment effectiveness. Therefore, 71 patients in the celecoxib group and 78 patients in the diclofenac group completed the study. No significant differences in demographic characteristics were observed between treatment groups. The mean (SD) age was 64.0 (9.0) years, 53.9% (76/141) of the patients were men and 46.1% (65/141) were women, and 99.3% (140/141) were white. At weeks 6 and 12, the patient's assessment of arthritis pain on walking (VAS) improved in both groups (-20.0 [23.6] mm in the celecoxib group and -35 [27.0] mm in the diclofenac group [mean treatment difference, 14.4 mm; 95% CI, 6.1 to 22.7]). However, treatment differences in change from baseline favored diclofenac at week 6 (14.4 mm; 95% CI, 6.1 to 22.7) and week 12 (12.2 mm; 95% CI, 2.2 to 22.1). A post hoc analysis, performed after unblinding due to an imbalance in the numbers of patients previously receiving NSAIDs, found a greater treatment difference at week 6 between celecoxib and diclofenac in arthritis pain, favoring diclofenac, in previous nonusers of NSAIDs (n = 49, 18.6 mm; 95% CI, 4.5 to 32.8) compared with previous NSAID users (n = 92, 9.5 mm; 95% CI, -0.4 to 19.3). Celecoxib and diclofenac were generally well tolerated. A similar proportion of patients in both treatment groups experienced AEs (all causality): 67/125 of celecoxib-treated patients (53.6%) compared with 66/123 of diclofenac-treated patients (53.7%).

CONCLUSION

This study did not demonstrate noninferiority of celecoxib 200 mg QD to diclofenac 50 mg TID in treating arthritis pain in patients with OA of the hip requiring joint replacement.

Evaluation of GW406381 for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: two randomized, controlled studies

CONTEXT

GW406381 is an investigational, highly selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that is effective in animal models of central sensitization and of inflammatory pain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine dose response for efficacy and safety of GW406381 in adults with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

DESIGN

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo- and positive-control studies: Study A, a 6-week nonflare design; Study B, a 12-week flare design.

PATIENTS

649 patients entered Study A; 1331 patients entered Study B.

STUDY A

GW406381 10, 20, 35, or 50 mg, celecoxib 200 mg, or placebo. Study B: GW406381 1, 5, 10, 25, or 50 mg, celecoxib 200 mg, or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study A, co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore and WOMAC question 1. Study B co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in WOMAC pain and function subscores and Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis Condition. A closed hierarchical test procedure was prespecified.

RESULTS

Study A demonstrated that GW406381 50 mg was superior to placebo on WOMAC pain subscore (mean difference from placebo -6.9 mm; P= .012). No clear dose response was observed, and the results with celecoxib were no different from those of placebo. In Study B, no dose of GW406381 was superior to placebo on the co-primary endpoints. Celecoxib was superior to placebo on all co-primary endpoints. Dose-related blood pressure and renovascular effects were seen with GW406381.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, clinically meaningful efficacy in pain related to OA of the knee was not demonstrated for GW406381 despite its peripheral and central sites of action.

Long-term retention on treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg once or twice daily compared with celecoxib 200 mg once daily: a randomised controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib, a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, has been demonstrated in previous studies of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). As it is important to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of treatments for a chronic disease such as OA, the present study compared the effects of lumiracoxib at doses of 100 mg once daily (o.d.) and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with those of celecoxib 200 mg o.d. on retention on treatment over 1 year.

METHODS

In this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, male and female patients (aged at least 40 years) with symptomatic primary OA of the hip, knee, hand or spine were randomised (1:2:1) to lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. (n = 755), lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. (n = 1,519) or celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 758). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of lumiracoxib at either dose compared with celecoxib 200 mg o.d. with respect to the 1-year retention on treatment rate. Secondary outcome variables included OA pain in the target joint, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, Short Arthritis assessment Scale (SAS) total score, rescue medication use, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Retention rates at 1 year were similar for the lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. and celecoxib 200 mg o.d. groups (46.9% vs 47.5% vs 45.3%, respectively). It was demonstrated that retention on treatment with lumiracoxib at either dose was non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg o.d. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves for the probability of premature discontinuation from the study for any reason were similar across the treatment groups. All three treatments generally yielded comparable results for the secondary efficacy variables and all treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., the recommended dose for OA, was as effective and well tolerated as celecoxib 200 mg o.d. in patients with OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT00145301.

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.

Risk of myocardial infarction associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) associated with the use of selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (coxibs).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a fixed-effect model to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for risk of MI associated with coxibs compared against placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other coxibs.

RESULTS

Fifty-five trials (99 087 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled OR for MI risk for any coxib compared against placebo was 1.46 (95%CI: 1.02, 2.09). We found celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib were associated with higher MI risks compared against placebo. The pooled OR for any coxib compared against other NSAIDs was 1.45 (95%CI: 1.09, 1.93). Rofecoxib had a significantly higher risk of MI than naproxen (OR: 5.39; 95%: 2.08, 14.02) and valdecoxib had lower MI risk than diclofenac (OR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.03, 0.73). There were no significant differences identified in the risk of MI from the available head-to-head comparisons of coxibs.

CONCLUSIONS

Coxibs were associated with increased risks of MI when compared against placebo or non-selective NSAIDs. Differences in MI risk were also apparent between comparisons of individual NSAIDs. Future work should consider using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to explore differences in MI risk between different subgroups of patients.

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.

Lumiracoxib in the management of osteoarthritis and acute pain

Lumiracoxib is a highly selective COX-2 inhibitor with a novel chemical structure and a relatively short plasma half-life. It has been approved in > 40 countries for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis and/or acute pain related to primary dysmenorrhoea and dental or orthopaedic surgery. In these conditions, lumiracoxib has proved to be as effective as standard doses of conventional NSAIDs and other COX-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs). According to the Therapeutic Arthritis Research Gastrointestinal Trial, which enrolled 18,325 patients with osteoarthritis, lumiracoxib 400 mg/day (four times its recommended dosage) was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of ulcer complications compared with naproxen 1000 mg/day and ibuprofen 2400 mg/day, at least in the population not taking low-dose aspirin. The atherothrombotic potential of NSAIDs, especially coxibs, has been much debated. In this respect, available data do not suggest that lumiracoxib may be associated with an increased hazard of cardiovascular events compared with non-selective NSAIDs. Finally, lumiracoxib may be an effective and safe drug provided both physicians and patients will comply with its approved indications and contraindications.

Lumiracoxib: the evidence of its clinical impact on the treatment of osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

The symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) include joint pain, stiffness, and a reduced ability to perform normal daily activities, which result in decreased quality of life. There is currently no known cure or means of preventing the progression of joint damage due to OA. Therefore, treatment focuses on the control of symptoms, including the use of various agents [including nonselective and selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] to provide pain relief and reduce inflammation. Lumiracoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor for the treatment of OA.

AIMS

To review the evidence for the treatment of OA with lumiracoxib.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

There is evidence that lumiracoxib reduces the pain and stiffness associated with OA, and is as effective as nonselective NSAIDs, and the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib. There is some evidence that lumiracoxib treatment results in a lower incidence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcer complications compared with nonselective NSAIDs. However, evidence suggests that there is no GI benefit in patients receiving concomitant aspirin medication. With the exception of GI ulcers, the evidence indicates that lumiracoxib has a tolerability profile similar to nonselective NSAIDs: low risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and a low incidence of edema. Changes in liver function occur in some patients, largely at doses >100 mg. The cost effectiveness of lumiracoxib compared with nonselective NSAIDs remains to be determined.

CLINICAL VALUE

Lumiracoxib is an alternative treatment option for OA which provides effective pain relief without the GI complications associated with nonselective NSAIDs, and with a low risk of CV events. Lumiracoxib is contraindicated in patients with current, previous, or at risk of, hepatic impairment.

Clinical pharmacology of lumiracoxib: a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor

Lumiracoxib (Prexige) is a selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor developed for the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain. Lumiracoxib possesses a carboxylic acid group that makes it weakly acidic (acid dissociation constant [pKa] 4.7), distinguishing it from other selective COX-2 inhibitors. Lumiracoxib has good oral bioavailability (74%). It is rapidly absorbed, reaching maximum plasma concentrations 2 hours after dosing, and is highly plasma protein bound. Lumiracoxib has a short elimination half-life from plasma (mean 4 hours) and demonstrates dose-proportional plasma pharmacokinetics with no accumulation during multiple dosing. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, peak lumiracoxib synovial fluid concentrations occur 3-4 hours later than in plasma and exceed plasma concentrations from 5 hours after dosing to the end of the 24-hour dosing interval. These data suggest that lumiracoxib may be associated with reduced systemic exposure, while still reaching sites where COX-2 inhibition is required for pain relief. Lumiracoxib is metabolised extensively prior to excretion, with only a small amount excreted unchanged in urine or faeces. Lumiracoxib and its metabolites are excreted via renal and faecal routes in approximately equal amounts. The major metabolic pathways identified involve oxidation of the 5-methyl group of lumiracoxib and/or hydroxylation of its dihaloaromatic ring. Major metabolites of lumiracoxib in plasma are the 5-carboxy, 4'-hydroxy and 4'-hydroxy-5-carboxy derivatives, of which only the 4'-hydroxy derivative is active and COX-2 selective. In vitro, the major oxidative pathways are catalysed primarily by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 with very minor contribution from CYP1A2 and CYP2C19. However, in patients genotyped as poor CYP2C9 metabolisers, exposure to lumiracoxib (area under the plasma concentration-time curve) is not significantly increased compared with control subjects, indicating no requirement for adjustment of lumiracoxib dose in these subjects. Lumiracoxib is selective for COX-2 compared with COX-1 in the human whole blood assay with a ratio of 515 : 1 in healthy subjects and in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. COX-2 selectivity was confirmed by a lack of inhibition of arachidonic acid and collagen-induced platelet aggregation. COX-2 selectivity of lumiracoxib is associated with a reduced incidence of gastroduodenal erosions compared with naproxen and a lack of effect on both small and large bowel permeability. Lumiracoxib does not exhibit any clinically meaningful interactions with a range of commonly used medications including aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), fluconazole, an ethinylestradiol- and levonorgestrel-containing oral contraceptive, omeprazole, the antacid Maalox, methotrexate and warfarin (although, as in common practice, routine monitoring of coagulation is recommended when lumiracoxib is co-administered with warfarin). As such, dose adjustments are not required when co-administering these agents with lumiracoxib. In addition, moderate hepatic impairment and mild to moderate renal impairment do not appear to influence lumiracoxib exposure.

Cardiovascular safety of lumiracoxib: a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials > or =1 week and up to 1 year in duration of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors has been the subject of considerable debate.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the risk of CV events with lumiracoxib by meta-analysis of all completed, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of > or =1 week and up to 1 year in duration of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

The Novartis Lumiracoxib Clinical Trial Database, which includes all clinical studies conducted to date with lumiracoxib, was reviewed. Data were extracted from RCTs of > or =1 week and up to 1 year in duration, the maximum study duration; 34,668 patients were included in standard and cumulative meta-analyses. Twenty-two RCTs of lumiracoxib 100 to 1200 mg daily were identified; 22,781 patients were included in 1-year trials. Mean age of the patients was 61.5 years and 74% were female. More than 50% of the patients in these studies had hypertension at baseline and 6% had diabetes. Parameters analyzed were the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) composite CV end point of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic), and CV death; MI alone; and stroke alone. Twenty-one of the 22 RCTs have been published.

RESULTS

For all 3 parameters, relative risk (RR) was calculated versus non-naproxen NSAIDs, naproxen, and placebo. The results were as follows: for the APTC end point versus non-naproxen NSAIDs: RR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.46-1.51; versus naproxen: RR 1.49, 95% CI, 0.94-2.36; versus placebo: RR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.41-2.86; for MI alone versus non-naproxen NSAIDs: RR 0.80, 95% CI, 0.28-2.25; versus naproxen: RR 1.69, 95% CI, 0.82-3.48; versus placebo: RR 1.27, 95% CI, 0.25-6.56; and for stroke alone versus non-naproxen NSAIDs: RR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.35-2.35; versus naproxen: RR 1.42, 95% CI, 0.70-2.91; versus placebo: RR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.13-2.74. Cumulative meta-analyses of lumiracoxib versus all comparators (placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, celecoxib, rofecoxib, and naproxen) did not find any significant differences in APTC, MI alone, or stroke alone.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of 34,668 patients receiving > or =1 week and up to 1 year of treatment found no evidence that lumiracoxib was associated with a significant increase in CV risk compared with naproxen, placebo, or all comparators (placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, celecoxib, rofecoxib, and naproxen).

Cardiovascular Risks of Cyclooxygenase Inhibition

Millions of patients use nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for relief of arthritic pain. Although NSAIDs reduce pain, their use has been linked to gastroduodenal complications. Selective inhibition of the cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme appeared to offer patients similar pain relief with an improved adverse-effect profile. However, accumulating experiences have raised concerns regarding the cardiovascular toxicities of the selective COX-2 inhibitors. Although selective COX inhibitors provide more gastrointestinal protection than NSAIDs, the unbalanced inhibition of prostaglandins may promote cardiovascular complications. Variability in study designs and inconsistency in results have made the evaluation of NSAID and COX-2 inhibitor safety very difficult, creating confusion among health care practitioners. We examine the pharmacologic and clinical evidence that defines the cardiovascular risk associated with COX inhibition.

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.