Comparative efficacy and safety of celecoxib and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip

Identification of potential ferroptosis key genes and immune infiltration in rheumatoid arthritis by integrated bioinformatics analysis

Objective

Ferroptosis is of vital importance in the development of Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this project is to clarify the potential ferroptosis-related genes, pathways, and immune infiltration in RA by bioinformatics analysis.

Methods

We acquired ferroptosis-related genes (FRGs) from Ferroptosis database (FerrDb). We obtained the Gene dataset of RA (GSE55235) from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) Database, screened the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in RA and control samples, and then took the intersection of it and FRGs. Aiming to construct the protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks of the FRGs-DEGs, STRING database and Cytoscape software 3.7.0 would be used. Furthermore, hub genes were identified by CytoNCA, a Cytoscape plug-in. The gene ontology (GO) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment of FRGs-DEGs were performed.

Results

We identified 34 FRGs-DEGs, including 7 upregulated and 27 downregulated genes by taking the intersection of the FRGs and DEGs. PPI analysis identified a total of 3 hub genes(VEGFA, PTGS2, and JUN). GO enrichment analyses and KEGG Pathway enrichment displayed that the FRGs-DEGs are involved in the response to oxidative stress and corticosteroid, heme binding, FoxO-signal pathway. Results of immune infiltration displayed that increased infiltration of T cells, while Macrophages M2 less may be related to the occurrence of RA.

Conclusion

The hub genes involved in ferroptosis in RA may be VEGFA, PTGS2, and JUN, which are mainly involved in FoxO-signal pathway. T cell, Mac, and plasma cells may be involved in the regulation of RA-joints-synovial-inflammation.

Non-operative Treatment Options for Osteoarthritis in the Hip

With the increased disability associated with osteoarthritis (OA) progression, and the significant socioeconomic burden of joint replacement surgeries, there is a need for more reliable conservative treatments for patients presenting with hip OA. Most studies of OA treatments involve the knee. We conducted a literature search and reviewed non-operative hip OA treatment recommendations by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, as well as Cochrane Reviews. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroid injections are the most supported and recommended options for hip OA; other medications with potential benefits for short-term pain relief include acetaminophen and tramadol. Most societies recommend against the use of glucosamine, typical opioids, and viscosupplementation injections. Platelet-rich plasma has potential benefits, but evidence of its effectiveness is incomplete. Further research is needed to better inform and guide clinicians who create treatment plans for patients with symptomatic hip OA.

Comparative efficacy and safety of Verbascox® - a proprietary herbal extract capable of inhibiting human cyclooxygenase-2 - and celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis

The aim of this randomized, single-blind, active-controlled pilot study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of oral supplementation with Verbascox^®, a proprietary herbal extract capable of inhibiting human cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), in patients with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Patients in the control group (n = 50) did not undergo any treatment (watchful waiting). Patients in the Verbascox^® group (n = 50) received oral supplementation (800 mg/day) with the herbal extract for 2 weeks. The final study group consisted of patients (n = 50) who received celecoxib, a known pharmacological inhibitor of COX-2, 200 mg/day for 2 weeks. Examining physicians and laboratory personnel were blinded to group assignment, whereas patients were unblinded. All participants were evaluated using standard measures of pain relief and improvement in functional capacity at baseline, after 1 week, and at the end of the 2-week treatment course. Moreover, serum levels of substance P (SP), a member of the tachykinin family of neuropeptides involved in pain perception, were measured at the three time points. Both Verbascox^® and celecoxib reduced pain, improved functional capacity, and lowered serum SP levels at 2 weeks compared with baseline, without significant inter-arm differences. Both Verbascox^® and celecoxib showed a limited number of treatment-emergent adverse events. In summary, oral supplementation with Verbascox^® (800 mg/day) in patients with mild-to-moderate OA of the knee is as effective and safe as a standard therapeutic dose of celecoxib in terms of pain relief and improvement in functional capacity after a 2-week treatment course.

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.

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Celecoxib for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis in Asian and non-Asian Populations: An Analysis of Data from Two Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Active-comparator Trials

Introduction

Celecoxib is an effective treatment for pain associated with osteoarthritis. There are differences in patient demographics among ethnic groups, with Asian populations typically smaller in body size. As a consequence, there may be a perception that celecoxib is less effective, or has poorer tolerability in Asian patients.

Methods

This analysis compares data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator trials of celecoxib for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: one study in Asian patients and the other in a mixed population comprised mostly of non-Asian patients (from which Asian patients were excluded for this analysis). Each trial was of similar design, with patients randomized 2:2:1 to 6 weeks treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily, active comparator (naproxen 500 mg twice daily or ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily), or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint in each trial was the change from baseline to week 6 in the Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain, as measured on a visual analog scale.

Results

In total, 329 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, 179 in the Asian study and 150 in the non-Asian study. The Asian population was significantly older and smaller in body size (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the Asian and non-Asian populations in change in pain score (95% confidence interval) at study endpoint with celecoxib [−1.1 (−7.7, 5.5); P = 0.7400] or placebo [−5.2 (−14.8, 4.4); P = 0.2870]. There were also no notable differences in safety outcomes between populations.

Conclusions

Due to the smaller size of some Asian patients with OA, physicians may be tempted to decrease the dose of celecoxib below the therapeutic range recognized by regulatory authorities; these data suggest that dose changes are not necessary.

Funding

Pfizer Inc.

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.

Relative efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, celecoxib, and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis : A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials based on patient withdrawal

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, celecoxib, and naproxen at recommended dosages in patients with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib 30-60 mg, celecoxib 200-400 mg, and naproxen 1000 mg, based on the number of patient withdrawals among those with OA, were included in this network meta-analysis. We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from the RCTs.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, including 5,942 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The proportion of patient withdrawals due to lack of efficacy was significantly lower in the etoricoxib 30-60 mg (OR 0.21, 95 % CrI 0.12-0.38), celecoxib 200-400 mg (OR 0.29, 95 % CrI 0.18-0.47), and naproxen 1000 mg (OR 0.31, 95 % CrI 0.18-0.51) groups than in the placebo group. The number of patient withdrawals due to lack of efficacy tended to be lower in the etoricoxib 30-60 mg group than in the naproxen 1000 mg and celecoxib 200-400 mg groups, although they did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.68, 95 % CrI 0.36-1.33 and OR 0.70, 95 % CrI 0.38-1.37, respectively). Ranking probabilities based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that etoricoxib 30-60 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment based on the number of withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (SUCRA = 0.9168) followed by celecoxib 200-400 mg (SUCRA = 0.5659), naproxen 1000 mg (SUCRA = 0.5171), and placebo (SUCRA = 0.000189). With respect to tolerability, the number of withdrawals due to adverse events was not significantly different among etoricoxib, celecoxib, naproxen, and placebo, although it tended to be lower with etoricoxib and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Etoricoxib 30-60 mg, celecoxib 200-400 mg, and naproxen 1000 mg were more efficacious than placebo. However, there was no significant difference in efficacy and tolerability between the medications.

Efficacy of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized double-blind, non-inferiority trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms.

Method

In this 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to 200 mg celecoxib once daily, 800 mg ibuprofen three times daily or placebo. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of celecoxib to ibuprofen in Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain (scored 0–100). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and upper gastrointestinal tolerability.

Results

A total of 388 patients were treated (celecoxib n = 153; ibuprofen n = 156; placebo n = 79). Mean difference (95% confidence interval) between celecoxib and ibuprofen in the Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain was 2.76 (−3.38, 8.90). As the lower bound was greater than −10, celecoxib was non-inferior to ibuprofen. The WOMAC total score was significantly improved with celecoxib and ibuprofen, versus placebo. Patients receiving celecoxib were significantly more satisfied (versus placebo) in 10 of 11 measures on the Pain Satisfaction Scale versus three measures with ibuprofen. Upper gastrointestinal events were less frequent with celecoxib (1.3%) than ibuprofen (5.1%) or placebo (2.5%).

Conclusion

Celecoxib was well tolerated and as effective as ibuprofen for symptoms associated with knee osteoarthritis.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT00630929

Impact of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on cardiovascular risk: Is it the same in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis?

Although large-scale population studies have shown that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of myocardial infarction, this is not confirmed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Herein, we review the litterature on the differential effects of NSAIDs on cardiovascular risk in osteoarthritis (OA) versus RA and discuss possible explanations for this discrepancy. To assess a potential additive effect of age in non-RA populations, we compared weighted mean age between RA patients and unselected NSAID users included in cohort and case-control studies that estimate the cardiovascular risk of NSAIDs, assuming that the main indication for NSAID usage in elderly populations is OA. Our hypothesis that advanced age in osteoarthtitis compared to RA patients confounds the effect of NSAIDs on cardiovasular risk was not confirmed. Several other hypotheses that can be proposed to explain this counterintuitive effect of NSAIDs on the cardiovascular risk of RA patients are discussed. We conclude that patients with RA have a lower cardiovascular disease risk associated with the use of NSAIDs, probably due to the nature of their disease per se, until further research indicates differently.

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.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and naproxen versus placebo in Hispanic patients with knee osteoarthritis

Background

Celecoxib is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, information on its efficacy and safety profile in different racial/ethnic groups is limited. Noticeable differences among racial groups are found in other disease states, but a thorough investigation of OA is lacking. The objective of this study was to determine if celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as naproxen 500 mg twice daily in the treatment of OA of the knee in Hispanic patients.

Methods

Hispanic patients aged ≥45 years with knee OA were randomized to receive celecoxib 200 mg once daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily, or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain at 6 weeks compared with baseline. Secondary variables were change in Patient’s and Physician’s Global Assessments of Arthritis from baseline to week 6/early termination, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) from baseline to week 6/early termination, change in American Pain Society pain score, Pain Satisfaction Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and measurements of upper gastrointestinal tolerability.

Results

In total, 239 patients completed the trial (96 celecoxib, 96 naproxen, 47 placebo). Celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in reducing OA pain (least squares mean change from baseline [standard error] −39.7 [2.7] for celecoxib and −36.9 [2.6] for naproxen). Patient’s and Physician’s Global Assessments of Arthritis, WOMAC scores, upper gastrointestinal tolerability, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and PHQ-9 showed no statistically significant differences between the celecoxib and naproxen groups. The incidence of adverse events and treatment-related adverse events were similar among the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Celecoxib 200 mg once daily was as effective as naproxen 500 mg twice daily in the treatment of signs and symptoms of knee OA in Hispanic patients. Celecoxib was shown to be safe and well tolerated in this patient population.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoarthritis oral therapies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA.

METHODS

A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments.

RESULTS

Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years.

CONCLUSION

Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics prescription trends at a central west bank hospital

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to reliably describe the pattern of outpatient prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antibiotics (ATBs) at a central hospital in the West Bank, Palestine.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study investigating a cohort of 2,208 prescriptions ordered by outpatient clinics and the emergency room over one year in Beit Jala Hospital in Bethlehem, West Bank. The orders were analysed for the rate and types of NSAIDs and ATBs utilised, and the appropriateness of these drugs to the diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of the total prescriptions, 410 contained NSAIDs (18.6%), including diclofenac (40.2%), low dose aspirin (23.9%), ibuprofen (17.8%) and indomethacin (15.1%). A minority of these prescriptions contained a combination of these agents (2.5%). Only one prescription contained cyclooxyeganse-2 inhibitors (0.2%). The appropriateness of NSAID use to the diagnosis was as follows: appropriate (58.3%), inappropriate (14.4%) and difficult to tell (27.3%). The rate of ATB use was 30.3% (669 prescriptions). The ATBs prescribed were amoxicillin (23.3%), augmentin (14.3%), quinolones (12.7%), first and second generation cephalosporins (9.4% and 12.7%, respectively) and macrolides (7.2%). ATB combinations were identified in 9.4%, with the most common being second-generation cephalopsorins and metronidazole (4.3%). Regarding the appropriateness of prescribing ATBs according to the diagnosis, it was appropriate in 44.8%, inappropriate in 20.6% and difficult to tell in 34.6% of the prescriptions.

CONCLUSION

These findings revealed a relatively large number and inappropriate utilisation of ATBs and NSAIDs. An interventional programme needs to be adopted to reinforce physicians' knowledge of the rational prescription of these agents.

Assessing the cardiovascular risk between celecoxib and nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

A prospective, 3-year comparative observational study compared the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis prescribed celecoxib or a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients prescribed celecoxib (n=5,470) or NSAIDs (n=5,059) between November 1, 2007, and July 31, 2008 in 1,084 hospitals and clinics in Japan were eligible for safety analysis. Mean (standard deviation) observation for the celecoxib group was 716 (420) days and 692 (426) days for the NSAID group (P=0.004). Composite I (adjudicated cardiovascular adverse events of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, heart failure, cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage) number of events (percentage) and rate/1,000 person years was 66 (1.2%) and 6.2 (10,745 person years), respectively, for the celecoxib and 65 (1.3%) and 6.8 (9,601 person years) for the NSAID (P=0.58) groups. Composite II (all cardiovascular events) number of events (percentage) and rate/1,000 person years was 79 (1.4%) and 7.4, respectively, for the celecoxib and 84 (1.7%) and 8.8 for the NSAID (P=0.26) group. Adjusted Cox hazards ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.89 (0.63-1.27; P=0.52) for Composite I, 0.87 (0.63-1.19; P=0.39) for Composite II and 1.03 (0.75-1.41; P=0.87) for death from all causes.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for confounding variables, celecoxib was not associated with an increase of cardiovascular risk in comparison with nonselective NSAID in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis in an observational setting.

Response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in African Americans with osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE

This 6-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the analgesic efficacy, tolerability and safety of celecoxib, naproxen and placebo in African Americans with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

METHODS

A total of 322 patients aged ≥ 45 years with OA of the knee in a flare state received 200 mg celecoxib orally once daily, 500 mg naproxen orally twice daily or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain.

RESULTS

Celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in reducing OA pain. Similar efficacy was observed in many of the secondary outcome measures. Celecoxib was well tolerated and demonstrated favorable upper gastro-intestinal tolerability. Improvements in outcome measures were numerically greater in the active treatment groups compared with the placebo group, but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib was as effective as naproxen in relieving OA pain in African Americans and was well tolerated. Few significant differences were observed between active treatments and placebo, possibly because of a strong placebo effect.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

METHODS

This 6-month, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial was conducted at 47 centres in the USA. Patients with OA of the knee were randomized to receive 200 mg celecoxib orally once daily or 500 mg naproxen orally twice daily. The primary endpoint was defined as a 20% improvement from baseline to 6 months in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA total score.

RESULTS

A total of 586 out of 589 randomized patients received at least one dose of celecoxib (n=294) or naproxen (n=292). The primary endpoint (6-month response rate) was achieved by 52.7% and 49.7% of patients in the celecoxib and naproxen treatment groups, respectively. Significantly fewer discontinuations due to gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in patients receiving celecoxib than in those receiving naproxen (4.1% versus 15.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the 6month study period, celecoxib provided similar improvements in OA symptoms to naproxen. In addition, celecoxib provided better upper gastrointestinal tolerability than naproxen.

Management strategies for osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and gouty arthritis

Rheumatic diseases are among the most frequent causes of pain and disability. Effective management of rheumatic diseases including osteoarthritis (OA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and gouty arthritis requires an understanding of the underlying disease mechanisms.Symptoms of OA result from both mechanical factors and elements of inflammation. Current management strategies target both of these factors and generally consist of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions, including use of nonspecific nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitors (coxibs), which have analgesic and antiinflammatory properties. Other approaches include intraarticular hyaluronate and the use of alternative therapies under investigation such as acupuncture or glucosamine.Disease mechanisms in AS involve enthesitis, an inflammation at the site of insertion of ligaments, tendons, or joint capsules to bone. Posture and exercise are important nonpharmacologic strategies that may be made easier with the use of NSAIDs or coxibs. Recently developed therapies, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, target the underlying disease mechanisms and have demonstrated dramatic symptomatic effects. Disease-modifying effects still need to be established.In gout, hyperuricemia leads to crystal-induced inflammation in some patients. Etoricoxib, one of the newer coxibs, has shown promise in treating acute gout, with efficacy similar to indomethacin, the current standard NSAID often used in these patients. Oral or intraarticular steroids can also be considered. For chronic care uricosurics can be beneficial if renal function is normal and excretion is not excessive, but allopurinol is used most often. Nonpharmacologic modalities, such as rest and cold applications, are useful for acute episodes, and lifestyle modification in the form of diet can also play a role in chronic disease management.

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib versus diclofenac and omeprazole in elderly arthritis patients: a subgroup analysis of the CONDOR trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of celecoxib versus diclofenac slow release (SR) plus omeprazole in elderly arthritis patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients aged≥65 years, with osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis, at high gastrointestinal (GI) risk who participated in the CONDOR trial (Celecoxib vs. Omeprazole and Diclofenac in Patients With Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis) were included in this subanalysis. CONDOR was a 6-month prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, international study comparing treatment with celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (BID) versus diclofenac SR 75 mg BID plus omeprazole 20 mg daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was a composite of Clinically Significant Upper and Lower GI Events adjudicated by an independent blinded expert committee. Efficacy was determined by the Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis.

RESULTS

A total of 2446 patients aged≥65 years were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n=1219 celecoxib; n=1227 diclofenac). Eight patients in the celecoxib group and 52 in the diclofenac group were adjudicated as having Clinically Significant Upper and Lower GI events (adjusted odds ratio: 6.27; p<0.0001). Clinically significant reductions in hemoglobin (≥2 g/dL) and/or hematocrit (≥10%) were observed in 23 patients in the celecoxib group and in 76 in the diclofenac group (relative risk: 3.22 [95% confidence interval: 2.04-5.07]; p<0.0001). Incidence of moderate-to-severe abdominal symptoms and discontinuation of treatment due to GI adverse events (AEs) were lower in the celecoxib group. The Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis score least squares mean change from baseline to final visit and percentage of patients rating treatment efficacy as good/very good at baseline and final visit were similar in both groups.

LIMITATIONS

The dose of celecoxib used is consistent with the European label for the management of osteoarthritis and may not reflect what is commonly prescribed in current clinical practice in the United States. The data were obtained in a clinical trial setting where patients were enrolled based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria; as such, the patients may not be broadly representative of the patient population in a general practice setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy was comparable in the two treatment groups. There were fewer endpoints as well as fewer GI AEs reported in patients treated with celecoxib compared with diclofenac. These data may help physicians in their treatment decisions for elderly patients with arthritis.

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.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain and immobility-associated osteoarthritis: consensus guidance for primary care

Background

Osteoarthritis is a common presentation in primary care, and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (sometimes also referred to as traditional NSAIDs or tNSAIDs) and selective cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors (COX-2 inhibitors) are commonly used to treat it. The UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends taking patient risk factors into account when selecting a tNSAID or a COX-2 inhibitor, but GPs have lacked practical guidance on assessing patient risk.

Methods

A multi-disciplinary group that included primary care professionals (PCPs) developed an evidence-based consensus statement with an accompanying flowchart that aimed at providing concise and specific guidance on NSAID use in osteoarthritis treatment. An open invitation to meet and discuss the issue was made to relevant healthcare professionals in South Yorkshire. A round table meeting was held that used a modified nominal group technique, aimed at generating opinions and ideas from all stakeholders in the consensus process. A draft developed from this meeting went through successive revisions until a consensus was achieved.

Results

Four statements on the use of tNSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors (and an attached category of evidence) were agreed: 1) tNSAIDs are effective drugs in relieving pain and immobility associated with osteoarthritis. COX-2 inhibitors are equally effective; 2) tNSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors vary in their potential gastrointestinal, liver, and cardio-renal toxicity. This risk varies between individual treatments within both groups and is increased with dose and duration of treatment; 3) COX-2 inhibitors are associated with a significantly lower gastrointestinal toxicity compared to tNSAIDs. Co-prescribing of aspirin reduces this advantage; 4) PPIs should always be considered with a tNSAID and with a COX-2 inhibitor in higher GI risk patients. An accompanying flowchart to guide management was also agreed.

Conclusions

Individual patient risk is an important factor in choice of treatment for patients with osteoarthritis and the consensus statement developed offers practical guidance for GPs and others in primary care. Where there are clinical uncertainties, guidance developed and agreed by local clinicians has a role to play in improving patient management.

Treatment of Osteoarthritis with Continuous Versus Intermittent Celecoxib

Objective.

To determine whether “continuous” celecoxib is more efficacious than “intermittent” use in preventing osteoarthritis (OA) flares of the knee and/or hip.

Methods.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter international study comparing efficacy and safety of continuous (daily) versus intermittent (as required during predefined OA flare) celecoxib 200 mg/day in 858 subjects, aged 18–80 years. The study consisted of 3 periods: (I) screening/washout visit; (II) open-label run-in with celecoxib; and (III) 22-week blinded treatment. Only subjects whose OA flares resolved in Period 2 (without subsequent flare) were randomized. The primary endpoint, number of flares per time of exposure during Period III (number of flares per month), was compared using analysis of variance with treatment as the independent variable. Acetaminophen was available as rescue medication.

Results.

Of 875 subjects randomized to treatment, 858 subjects received treatment. At randomization > 70% were female; mean age 58.6 years; mean disease duration 6.5 years; total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index mean score 25.8; ∼45% had hypertension; and ∼20% were using aspirin (for cardiovascular prophylaxis). Subjects receiving continuous treatment reported 42% fewer OA flares/month than intermittent users (p < 0.0001) or 2.0 fewer OA flares over 22 weeks. Statistical and clinically meaningful benefits in secondary outcomes were also evident with continuous treatment. There were no differences in adverse events (AE) or new-onset/aggravated hypertension.

Conclusion.

Continuous treatment with celecoxib 200 mg/day was significantly more efficacious than intermittent use in preventing OA flares of the hip and knee, without an increase in overall AE, including gastrointestinal disorders and hypertension, during 22 weeks of treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00139776.

Combination therapy versus celecoxib, a single selective COX-2 agent, to reduce gastrointestinal toxicity in arthritic patients: patient and cost-effectiveness considerations

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for treating symptoms of rheumatologic diseases, such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Knowing their side effects and the way to minimize them is a medical responsibility. To reduce NSAID-related risk, clinicians should choose a gastroprotective strategy. This may include coprescribing a traditional NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor or a high-dose histamine 2-receptor antagonist (H₂RA), or using a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor or a COX-2 with a proton pump inhibitor. Assessing each patient’s risk (cardiovascular and gastrointestinal) is a priority in order to decide the best intervention to minimize toxicity. In this article, we review some of the common interventions for reducing the gastrointestinal side effects of NSAIDs.

Fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis: two randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that a fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated naproxen 500 mg and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium 20 mg has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for knee osteoarthritis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III studies (PN400-307 and PN400-309) enrolled patients aged ≥50 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Following an osteoarthritis flare, patients received naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium twice daily, celecoxib 200 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00664560 and NCT00665431.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three co-primary efficacy endpoints were mean change from baseline to week 12 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function subscales, and Patient Global Assessment of osteoarthritis using a visual analog scale (PGA-VAS).

RESULTS

In Study 307, 619 patients were randomized and 614 treated. In Study 309, 615 patients were randomized and 610 treated. Both naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib were associated with improvements (least squares mean change from baseline to week 12) in WOMAC pain (Study 307: -42.0 and -41.8, respectively; Study 309: -44.2 and -42.9, respectively), WOMAC function (Study 307: -36.4 and -36.3, respectively; Study 309: -38.9 and -36.8, respectively), and PGA-VAS (Study 307: 21.2 and 21.6, respectively; Study 309: 29.0 and 25.6, respectively). A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10 mm between naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and celecoxib was satisfied for each co-primary endpoint at week 12 in both studies. Significant improvements were observed with naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium versus placebo in both studies (p < 0.05). Celecoxib was significantly different from placebo in Study 307 (p < 0.05); however, the improvements were not significant in Study 309. Acetaminophen use and patient expectation of receiving active treatment (80% probability) may have contributed to a high placebo response observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium has comparable efficacy to celecoxib for the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee over 12 weeks.

A 13-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of lumiracoxib in hip osteoarthritis

The aim of this 13-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and positive-internal (celecoxib)-controlled, parallel-group study was to demonstrate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lumiracoxib in primary hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Eligible patients (n = 1,262; ACR criteria) were randomized (1:1:1) to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily (o.d.) (n = 427), celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 419), or matching placebo o.d. (n = 416) administered orally. The primary objective was to compare lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. and placebo with respect to three co-primary efficacy variables: the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Likert version 3.1 (WOMAC™ LK 3.1) questionnaire, the function subscale of the WOMAC™ LK 3.1 questionnaire, and patient's global assessment of disease activity (100-mm visual analog scale (VAS)) after 13 weeks of treatment. Of the 1,262 randomized patients, 951 completed the study. All randomized patients were included in the intention-to-treat and safety populations. Lumiracoxib was superior to the placebo (p < 0.001) after 13 weeks for all three co-primary endpoints. By week 13, the patient's global assessment of disease activity (100-mm VAS) improved by 23.3 mm (±SD, 27.83 mm) with lumiracoxib and 13.3 mm (±26.71 mm) with placebo. The WOMAC™ function score decreased by 10.4 (±13.56) with lumiracoxib and 6.8 (±12.55) with placebo. The WOMAC™ pain scores decreased by 3.4 (±4.16) with lumiracoxib and 2.2 (±3.94) with placebo at week 13. Similar results were observed for secondary endpoints: OA pain intensity and WOMAC™ total score. Lumiracoxib was similar to celecoxib for all three co-primary endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, lumiracoxib is effective in reducing pain and improving function in hip OA patients.

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.

The effectiveness of a weak opioid medication versus a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug in treating flare-up of chronic low-back pain: results from two randomized, double-blind, 6-week studies

Two 6-week studies compared the analgesic efficacy, tolerability and safety of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib 200 mg twice a day [bid]) and an opioid (tramadol HCl 50 mg four times a day [qid]) in subjects with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). Successful responders (primary endpoint) were defined as subjects completing 6 weeks of treatment and having > or = 30% improvement on the Numerical Rating Scale for pain. A total of 796 and 802 subjects were randomized to treatment in study 1 and study 2, respectively. A significantly greater percentage of celecoxib-treated subjects were successful responders compared with tramadol HCl-treated subjects (study 1: 63.2% versus 49.9%, respectively; study 2: 64.1% versus 55.1%, respectively). Fewer adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in the celecoxib-treated group. Overall, celecoxib 200 mg bid was more effective than tramadol HCl 50 mg qid in the treatment of CLBP, with fewer AEs reported.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for joint pain treatment in patients with osteoarthritis treated at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS): Comparison of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) vs. cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the main causes of disability worldwide, especially in persons >55 years of age. Currently, controversy remains about the best therapeutic alternative for this disease when evaluated from a cost-effectiveness viewpoint. For Social Security Institutions in developing countries, it is very important to assess what drugs may decrease the subsequent use of medical care resources, considering their adverse events that are known to have a significant increase in medical care costs of patients with OA. Three treatment alternatives were compared: celecoxib (200 mg twice daily), non-selective NSAIDs (naproxen, 500 mg twice daily; diclofenac, 100 mg twice daily; and piroxicam, 20 mg/day) and acetaminophen, 1000 mg twice daily. The aim of this study was to identify the most cost-effective first-choice pharmacological treatment for the control of joint pain secondary to OA in patients treated at the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS).

Methods

A cost-effectiveness assessment was carried out. A systematic review of the literature was performed to obtain transition probabilities. In order to evaluate analysis robustness, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Estimations were done for a 6-month period.

Results

Treatment demonstrating the best cost-effectiveness results [lowest cost-effectiveness ratio $17.5 pesos/patient ($1.75 USD)] was celecoxib. According to the one-way sensitivity analysis, celecoxib would need to markedly decrease its effectiveness in order for it to not be the optimal treatment option. In the probabilistic analysis, both in the construction of the acceptability curves and in the estimation of net economic benefits, the most cost-effective option was celecoxib.

Conclusion

From a Mexican institutional perspective and probably in other Social Security Institutions in similar developing countries, the most cost-effective option for treatment of knee and/or hip OA would be celecoxib.

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.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A prospective randomised multicentre study comparing continuous and intermittent treatment with celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of continuous and intermittent celecoxib treatment in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis in flare.

METHODS

In this 24-week, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomly assigned to receive continuous (n = 62) or intermittent (n = 61) treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily. The primary efficacy end point was the area under the curve (AUC) of the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores between baseline and week 24 divided by the time interval. Secondary end points included the percentage of days with intake of the flare drug, the AUC of the change in the WOMAC total scores, the mean change from baseline in the WOMAC scores, and the patient's and physician's global assessment of osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between patients randomised to continuous or intermittent treatment in the primary end point or most of the secondary end points, although a consistent trend supporting continuous treatment was observed. The percentage of days with intake of the flare drug was significantly lower (p = 0.031) in the group receiving continuous versus intermittent celecoxib. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The results of this pilot study indicate a potential clinical difference between continuous and intermittent treatment with celecoxib, and may be useful in designing future trials. A larger trial on both efficacy and safety outcomes is required for conclusive evidence in favour of either continuous or intermittent treatment.

Coxibs versus combination NSAID and PPI therapy for chronic pain: an exploration of the risks, benefits, and costs

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies qualitatively to compare the risks (gastrointestinal [GI] and cardiovascular) and benefits (pain control) of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs) relative to an alternative therapy of a nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) combined with a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and explore circumstances when coxibs may be appropriate.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a search of MEDLINE (Ovid Technologies, 1985-November 2005; English language, clinical trial), PubMed (1985-November 2005; English language, clinical trial, humans), and the Cochrane Collaboration using the terms selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs, as well as the various chemical names for specific coxib agents. Studies that compared a coxib with a nonselective NSAID and provided data concerning our outcomes of interest were included and categorized by the outcome variable, as well as by the specific coxib studied.

RESULTS

The majority of the numerous studies that evaluated pain as an endpoint showed no difference between coxib and nonselective NSAID therapy. However, while limited, preliminary safety data regarding the effects of both classes on the upper and lower GI tract suggest coxib superiority. Although coxibs are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events (CVEs) compared with placebo, this effect has not been conclusively shown compared with nonselective NSAIDs. Currently, coxib therapy is more expensive than combination therapy using a nonselective NSAID plus a PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with combination therapy including a nonselective NSAID and PPI, coxibs provide equivalent pain control and may have a lower GI tract complication profile, but at an unknown increased risk of CVEs and a greater financial cost. Coxib therapy may be an appropriate treatment for chronic pain in select patients with higher risks of GI complications, lower risk of CVEs, and in whom greater cost is not a restraint.

Comparing rates of dyspepsia with Coxibs vs NSAID+PPI: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Because dyspeptic symptoms are far more prevalent than ulcer complications in users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), economic models indicate that dyspepsia rates (not ulcer complications) are the major determinant of cost-effectiveness in treating arthritis. We performed a meta-analysis to compare rates of dyspepsia for two common therapies in high-risk patients with arthritis: cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (Coxib) alone and combination therapy with a nonselective NSAID and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (NSAID+PPI).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify trials comparing either a Coxib versus NSAID or NSAID+PPI versus NSAID in chronic arthritis. We selected studies that report incident dyspepsia, defined a priori as "epigastric pain," "dyspepsia," and "nausea." We then performed meta-analysis to compare the relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction of dyspepsia for Coxib versus NSAID and NSAID+PPI versus NSAID.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 26 studies comparing dyspepsia between Coxibs and NSAIDs revealed a 12% relative risk reduction for Coxibs with an absolute risk reduction of 3.7%. Meta-analysis of four studies comparing dyspepsia between the NSAID+PPI combination and NSAIDs alone revealed a 66% relative risk reduction for NSAID+PPI with an absolute risk reduction of 9%. Compared with the NSAID strategy, the number needed to treat to prevent dyspepsia was 27 for Coxibs and 11 for NSAID+PPI.

CONCLUSION

NSAID+PPI affords greater risk reduction for dyspepsia than Coxibs when compared with the common baseline of NSAIDs. Because there are limited head-to-head data comparing Coxibs versus NSAID+PPI, these data provide the best indirect evidence that NSAID+PPI may be superior to Coxibs in minimizing incident dyspepsia.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparison of the incidence of endoscopic gastric and duodenal ulcer rates with valdecoxib or naproxen in healthy subjects aged 65 to 75 years

BACKGROUND

Compared with nonselective NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors have been associated with a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (in short-term endoscopic studies) and ulcer complications (in long-term trials).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of valdecoxib 20 mg BID and naproxen 500 mg BID, administered for 6.5 days, on the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) mucosa of healthy older subjects (aged 65-75 years) as assessed by UGI endoscopy.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, active-comparator, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, eligible subjects who were free of NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor use for 2 weeks and who had normal UGI mucosa (mucosal grading score of 0, based on endoscopic evaluation of both the stomach and duodenum) were randomized. Serologic testing for Helicobacter pylori antibodies was conducted at baseline. No antiulcer medications were permitted. The primary end point was the incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (gastric or duodenal mucosal grading score of 7, as indicated by any lesion with unequivocal depth > or =3 mm in diameter) after 6.5 days of blinded treatment with valdecoxib, naproxen, or placebo. Secondary end points were incidence of gastric ulcers, duodenal ulcers, and gastroduodenal erosions/ulcers, and the incidence of > or =11 gastroduodenal erosions/ulcers. All documented adverse events were self-reported by subjects or were observed by investigators.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were randomized to receive valdecoxib, 60 to naproxen, and 60 to placebo. Mean (SD) subject age was 68.8 (3.25) years in the valdecoxib group, 68.6 (2.76) years in the naproxen group, and 68.6 (3.14) years in the placebo group (P = NS). In the valdecoxib and naproxen groups, 47.5% and 58.3% of subjects were female, respectively, compared with 56.7% of the placebo group (P = NS). Valdecoxib and placebo were associated with significantly lower incidences of gastroduodenal ulcers than naproxen (1.6% [1 gastroduodenal ulcer/61 patients] and 1.7% [1/59], respectively, vs 22.0% [13/59]; P < 0.001). Compared with naproxen, both valdecoxib and placebo were associated with significantly lower incidences of gastric (1.6% [1/61] and 1.7% [1/59] vs 15.3% [9/59]; both, P < 0.03) and duodenal ulcers (0% [0/61] and 0% [0/59] vs 8.5% [5/59]; both,P < 0.03). In all cases, the incidence of ulcers with valdecoxib was not significantly different from placebo. Results were similar for any erosions/ulcers, and when analyzed by H pylori status. The number of adverse events was low in each group.

CONCLUSION

In these healthy older subjects (aged 65-75 years), valdecoxib 20 mg BID was associated with a significantly lower rate of gastroduodenal, gastric, and duodenal ulcers than naproxen 500 mg BID, even after 6.5 days of therapy.