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

Predictive value of gastrointestinal symptoms and patient risk factors for NSAID-associated gastrointestinal ulcers defined by endoscopy? Insights from a pooled analysis of two naproxen clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat pain and rheumatic conditions. To facilitate patient management, we determined the predictive value of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and risk factors for the development of NSAID-associated GI injuries.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of pooled data from naproxen treatment arms of two identical, randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 trials in arthritis patients at risk of GI adverse events. Endoscopic incidence of GI ulcers at baseline, and 1, 3, and 6 months was employed as a surrogate parameter for GI injury. For GI symptom analysis, Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment questionnaire was used. For GI risk factor analysis, the high risk factors: previous GI injury, concomitant selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or corticosteroids, ulcer history, concomitant low-dose aspirin, and age >65 years were employed.

RESULTS

Data of 426 naproxen patients were analyzed. Distribution of GI symptoms between patients with and without ulcer was similar; about one third of patients developing an ulcer reported no GI pain symptoms. GI symptoms experienced under naproxen treatment were thus not indicative of GI injury. The proportion of patients developing an ulcer increased with the number of risk factors present, however, about a quarter of patients without any of the analyzed risk factors still developed an ulcer.

CONCLUSION

GI symptoms and the number of risk factors are not reliable predictors of NSAID-induced GI injury to decide which patients need gastroprotection and will lead to a large group of patients with GI injuries. A preventive rather than reactive approach should be taken.

Fixed Dose Versus Loose Dose: Analgesic Combinations

Combinations of drugs may be fixed (two or more entities in a single product) or loose (two or more agents taken together but as individual agents) to help address multimechanistic pain. The use of opioids plus nonopioids can result in lower opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Drug combinations may offer additive or synergistic benefits. A variety of fixed-dose combination products are available on the market such as diclofenac plus thiocolchicoside, acetaminophen and caffeine, acetaminophen and opioid, ibuprofen and acetaminophen, tramadol and acetaminophen, and others. Fixed-dose combination products offer predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, known adverse events, and can reduce the pill burden. However, they are limited to certain drug combinations and doses; loose dosing allows prescribers the versatility to meet individual patient requirements as well as the ability to titrate as needed. Not all drug combinations offer synergistic benefits, which depend on the drugs and their doses. Certain drugs offer dual mechanisms of action in a single molecule, such as tapentadol, and these may further be used in combination with other analgesics. New technology allows for co-crystal productions of analgesic agents which may further improve drug characteristics, such as bioavailability. Combination analgesics are important additions to the analgesic armamentarium and may offer important benefits at lower doses than monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib combined with JOINS in the treatment of degenerative knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this study will be to investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) along with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis (SYSADOA), JOINS tablets, for degenerative knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment and to determine the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of the combination therapy. In addition, we will investigate whether JOINS treatment alone after NSAID and JOINS combination treatment is effective in relieving and maintaining knee OA symptoms.

Methods

This study will be a prospective, randomized, double-blind endpoint study design. All patients will be randomly assigned to either intervention (celecoxib+JOINS) or control (celecoxib+placebo) groups. In Part 1, the intervention group will be administered celecoxib once a day and JOINS three times a day for a total of 12 weeks. In the control group, celecoxib will be administered once a day and JOINS placebo three times a day for a total of 12 weeks. In Part 2, JOINS alone and JOINS placebo alone will be administered for an additional 24 weeks in both groups, respectively. The primary endpoint will be the amount of change during the 12 weeks as assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score compared with baseline. The secondary endpoint will be the amount of change at 1, 4, 12, 24, and 36 weeks from the baseline for pain visual analog scale, Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form Health Survey-36 and biomarkers.

Results

The trial was registered with Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT04718649). The clinical trial was also registered on Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) with the trial registration number KCT0005742.

Conclusions

The combination treatment of the most commonly used SYSADOA drug, JOINS, and selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib as the representative NSAID for knee OA treatment, can be compared with celecoxib alone treatment to determine the safety or therapeutic effect.

Concept Endpoints Informing Design Considerations for Confirmatory Clinical Trials in Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

There is an unmet need for therapies that target the underlying pathophysiology of osteoarthritis (OA). However, defining appropriate measures for clinical trials of such therapies is challenging. Our objective is to propose concept clinical endpoints that directly capture clinical benefit in this setting and evaluate the feasibility of their use.

METHODS

This analysis used the multi-center, longitudinal, observational Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) database. OAI participants primarily had knee OA, with follow-up of up to nine years and assessments of joints, surgical interventions, performance outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We examined this dataset to identify existing outcome measures of direct clinical benefit. We evaluated the feasibility of conducting trials using these candidate endpoints by estimating incidence rates and resulting required sample sizes and study durations in time-to-event analyses.

RESULTS

We identified candidate endpoints based on total knee replacement (TKR) and composite endpoints defined by TKR and conservative thresholds of PROs of pain and function. Using time to TKR as an endpoint, a study with an average follow-up time of three years requires approximately 3,000 to 18,000 subjects depending on effect size. Alternatively, a composite endpoint such as 'time to TKR or severe pain or severely impaired functioning', the required sample sizes ranged from approximately 2,000 to 11,000 for a three-year study.

CONCLUSION

The proposed concept endpoints can reliably and feasibly evaluate effectiveness of therapies for this unmet need. In particular, the composite endpoint approach can substantially reduce sample sizes (up to approximately 40%) compared to the use of TKR alone.

Efficacy and Safety of Magnesium for the Management of Chronic Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent and complex health problem that is associated with a heavy symptom burden, substantial economic and social impact, and also, very few highly effective treatments. This review examines evidence for the efficacy and safety of magnesium in chronic pain. The previously published protocol for this review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched until September 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing magnesium (at any dose, frequency, or route of administration) with placebo using participant-reported pain measures. A total of 9 RCTs containing 418 participants were included. Three studies examined neuropathic pain (62 participants), 3 examined migraines (190 participants), 2 examined complex regional pain syndrome (86 participants), and 1 examined low back pain with a neuropathic component (80 participants). Heterogeneity of included studies precluded any meta-analyses. No judgment could be made about safety because adverse events were inconsistently reported in the included studies. Evidence of analgesic efficacy from included studies was equivocal. However, reported efficacy signals in some of the included trials provide a rationale for more definitive studies. Future, larger-sized trials with good assay sensitivity and better safety assessment and reporting, as well as careful attention to formulations with optimal bioavailability, will serve to better define the role of magnesium in the management of chronic pain.

Factors Affecting Quality of Life and Satisfaction in Patients with Arthritis after Change to a Fixed-Dose Naproxen/Esomeprazole Combination Drug

Background

In drug therapy for patients with arthritis, a naproxen/esomeprazole combination drug may be a tolerable choice because it can minimize gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the changes in quality of life (QOL), medication adherence, and satisfaction after switch from the existing drug to the combination drug. In addition, we analyzed the correlation between the above-mentioned variables and the stratified demographic and medical data of the patients.

Methods

A prospective, noninterventional, observational study was conducted in 30 hospitals between May 2014 and July 2016. In total, 2,308 patients with osteoarthritis, 99 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and 76 patients with ankylosing spondylitis were enrolled. Demographic information (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], alcohol consumption, and smoking) and medical information (type of arthritis, duration of disease, and comorbidities) were collected via a self-administered questionnaire. Patients were observed for more than three months after switching to the combination drug. Data on the QOL (EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire [EQ-5D questionnaire]), medication adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale [MMAS]), and satisfaction were collected at the first and last visits.

Results

A total of 2,483 patients enrolled at 30 hospitals completed the questionnaire. After the switch to the combination drug, the mean EQ-5D score improved from 0.72 ± 0.17 to 0.79 ± 0.14 (p < 0.001), and significant improvement was associated with female sex (p = 0.016), shorter disease duration (p < 0.001), and absence of comorbidities (p < 0.001). The mean MMAS score was 6.38 ± 1.77, indicating medium adherence. Satisfaction was significantly higher in female patients (p < 0.001), in patients with a shorter disease duration (p < 0.001), osteoarthritis (p = 0.003), and no comorbidities (p < 0.001). Serious drug-related adverse effects did not occur.

Conclusions

The overall QOL was improved with medium adherence after the switch to the combination drug. On the basis of the analysis of stratified data, sex, age, drinking, smoking, disease duration, comorbidities, and BMI might be associated with QOL, satisfaction, and adherence.

CGRP blockade by galcanezumab was not associated with reductions in signs and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis in a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study tested whether galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody with efficacy against migraine, was superior to placebo for the treatment of mild or moderate osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain.

METHOD

In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and celecoxib-controlled trial, patients with moderate to severe OA pain were randomized to placebo; celecoxib 200 mg daily for 16 weeks; or galcanezumab 5, 50, 120, and 300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks, twice. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore measured by 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The trial was considered positive if ≥1 dose of galcanezumab demonstrated ≥95% Bayesian posterior probability of superiority to placebo and ≥50% posterior probability of superiority to placebo by ≥9 mm. A planned interim analysis allowed termination of the study if posterior probability of superiority to placebo by ≥9 mm was ≤5%. Secondary endpoints included WOMAC function subscore and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of OA. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

The study was terminated after interim analysis suggested inadequate efficacy. Celecoxib significantly reduced WOMAC pain subscore compared with placebo [-12.0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -23 to -2 mm]. None of the galcanezumab arms demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement (range: 1.5 to -5.0 mm) or met the prespecified success criteria. No improvement in any secondary objective was observed. Galcanezumab was well tolerated by OA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to demonstrate sufficient statistical evidence that galcanezumab was efficacious for treating OA knee pain.

STUDY IDENTIFICATION

NCT02192190.

Work-related outcomes in randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials in osteoarthritis - are they adequately reported in journal publications? A systematic review

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) has a high prevalence in Western societies and can affect an individual's life in a number of domains, including work. In our experience, treatment trials on OA, however, rarely report work-related outcomes. Here we conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting of work-related outcomes in randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials in OA. Our systematic review also compared two search strategies for identifying eligible publications, one where work-related terms were included in the database search string (A) and one where this was not the case and work-related outcomes were identified by searches of full text Portable Document Formats (PDFs) (B). Search strategy A would conventionally be used and would only identify publications where work-related terms were mentioned in the title or abstract. Search strategy B presents the innovation of full text PDF searching and would identify publications were work-related terms were reported in the full text, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the title and abstract or not. We hypothesize that search strategy B identifies more relevant publications than search strategy A.

Methods

Electronic database searching was performed in Medline (Pubmed) from database inception to February 23, 2017 to identify peer-reviewed articles of randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled treatment trials in OA of the hand, hip, or knee, available as full-text PDFs. For search strategy A, search terms to identify work-related outcomes were included in the database search string, while search strategy B did not have these terms included in the database search string, but instead involved full text PDF searching. We included English language articles only and only those articles where searchable PDFs were available, to enable a comparison between search strategies A and B. Additionally, included studies also needed to report on pain intensity in relation to the work-related outcomes.

Results

Search strategy A yielded 50 hits combined for hand, hip or knee OA that mentioned some work-related concept in the title or abstract; 12 articles had to be excluded because they were not available as searchable PDFs. Screening of the remaining 38 articles resulted in only two articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. Search strategy B yielded 986 hits, out of which 201 articles were excluded because searchable full text PDFs were not available. PDF full text searching and further screening resulted in 10 articles that were considered eligible for our review.

Conclusions

Work-related outcomes are rarely reported in journal publication on randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trials of hand, hip or knee OA. Searching full text PDFs yields more eligible articles than searching titles and abstracts only.

Defining acute flares in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and critically synthesise definitions of acute flares in knee osteoarthritis (OA) reported in the medical literature.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of science and six other electronic databases (inception to July 2017) for original articles and conference abstracts reporting a definition of acute flare (or synonym) in humans with knee OA. There were no restrictions by language or study design (apart from iatrogenic-induced flare-ups, eg, injection-induced). Data extraction comprised: definition, pain scale used, flare duration or withdrawal period, associated symptoms, definition rationale, terminology (eg, exacerbation or flare), baseline OA severity, age, gender, sample size and study design.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles were included (46 flare design trials, 17 observational studies, 6 other designs; sample sizes: 15-6085). Domains used to define flares included: worsening of signs and symptoms (61 studies, 27 different measurement tools), specifically increased pain intensity; minimum pain threshold at baseline (44 studies); minimum duration (7 studies, range 8-48 hours); speed of onset (2 studies, defined as 'sudden' or 'quick'); requirement for increased medication (2 studies). No definitions included activity interference.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of OA flare appears in the medical literature but most often in the context of flare design trials (pain increases observed after stopping usual treatment). Key domains, used to define acute events in other chronic conditions, appear relevant to OA flare and could provide the basis for consensus on a single, agreed definition of 'naturally occurring' OA flares for research and clinical application.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014010169.

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.

Comparison of effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched trials of analgesics for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

AIMS

To investigate the use of an enriched study design on the estimates of treatment effect in analgesic trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

Database searches were conducted from 2004 to 2014. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating pain medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The estimates of treatment effect on pain and adverse events were compared between enriched and nonenriched designs. Metaregression was used to assess the association between the effect size estimate and the study design controlling for analgesic dose and methodological quality.

RESULTS

We included 108 trials, of which 99 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 44 171). There were no overall differences in effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched designs for pain intensity. There was a significant difference for a reduction in any adverse events favouring enriched designs for opioids, but not for other analgesics or the outcome serious adverse events. There was an association between effect size and methodological quality, with failure to blind the outcome assessor and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis being associated with larger effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that the use of an enriched study design changes the treatment effect size estimate for pain. There is some evidence that clinical trials that employ enriched designs report a reduced risk of adverse events in trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but it is unclear whether enriched designs influence estimates of serious adverse events. Features of trial design and study quality were associated with treatment effect estimates.

Defining Flare in Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Knee: A Systematic Literature Review — OMERACT Virtual Special Interest Group

Objective.

Beyond the exacerbation of pain in describing a flare in osteoarthritis (OA), patients and health professionals add other elements that deserve to be fully elucidated, such as effusion, swelling, and mobility limitation. To define and conceptualize the construct flare in OA, the objective was to identify the key variables, or symptoms, that worsen, and to clarify how these variables are described in the literature by patients and clinicians.

Methods.

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Medline and PsychINFO. In brief, the search terms used were “osteoarthritis,” “knee,” “hip,” and “flare.” Specific characteristics of included studies were identified, including the type of study design, type of flare assessed, how the flare developed, and what definition of flare was used, including whether the definition was based on qualitative or quantitative analysis.

Results.

Pain was the major factor in the definition of flare within these studies. Four components of flare were identified: pain, other factors, composite criteria, and global assessment. While the majority of studies reported flare as an increase in pain using standardized outcome measures, only 1 study reported the antecedents and consequences of a pain flare using qualitative methods.

Conclusion.

The use of flare as an outcome or inclusion criterion in rheumatology trials is a common occurrence; however, this review highlights the wide variation in the definitions of OA flare currently in use and the emphasis on the measurement of pain. This variation in definition does not allow for direct comparison between trials and limits interpretation of evidence.

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.

Evolving therapeutic strategies to improve nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug safety

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) possess potent anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties through inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes (COX-1 and COX-2), which are responsible for synthesis of proinflammatory mediators. NSAIDs are frequently used for treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions. However, their use is associated with serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal (GI), cardiovascular, renal, and hepatic adverse effects, which pose a serious clinical concern for both patients and physicians. During the past 2 decades, approaches to improving the tolerability of NSAIDs were mainly directed toward discovery of COX-2 selective NSAIDs (coxibs), which were expected to minimize the risk of GI injury. Unfortunately, the results from multiple clinical studies have shown that treatment with coxibs may increase the risk for cardiovascular complications. This review summarizes current strategies used to reduce the toxicity of NSAIDs and outlines novel therapeutic approaches still in preclinical development. To minimize the risk of GI ulcerations and bleeding, combination therapies with gastroprotective agents are currently recommended. The new therapeutic agents anticipated to have similar effects include nitric oxide- and hydrogen sulfide-releasing NSAIDs. Novel manufacturing technologies enhance dissolution and absorption of NSAID products, allowing for their administration at low doses, which could lead to improved drug tolerability without diminishing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory efficacy of NSAIDs. This principle is in line with the current recommendation by the US Food and Drug Administration that NSAIDs should be used at the lowest effective dosage. Finally, NSAID formulations targeted directly to the site of inflammation are expected to reduce systemic drug exposure and thus decrease the risk of systemic adverse effects.

Gastrointestinal safety and efficacy of long-term GCSB-5 use in patients with osteoarthritis: A 24-week, multicenter study

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY RELEVANCE

A previous study indicated non-inferiority of GCSB-5 to celecoxib regarding efficacy and safety in treating OA; however, the gastrointestinal (GI) safety data was limited to 12 weeks. Accordingly, a longer term study with a larger number of patients was necessary to establish the GI safety of GCSB-5.

AIM OF STUDY

The primary goal was to determine the safety and efficacy of 24-week use of GCSB-5. The secondary goal was to compare the GI safety data of GCSB-5 with that of the previously reported Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS).

METHOD

This was a 24-week, multicenter, single-arm phase IV Study for the safety and efficacy of GCSB-5. A total of 761 patients were enrolled and 756 patients received at least one dose of GCSB-5. Among them, 629 patients (82.7%) completed the 24 week follow up. The primary goal was to determine the safety and efficacy of GCSB-5 for 24 weeks. The secondary goal was to compare the GI safety data of GCSB-5 with that of the previously reported Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS).

RESULTS

The incidence of GI disorders of GCSB-5 was 23.7%. The annual rate of perforation, ulcer obstruction, or bleeding (PUB) incidence was 0.0%. The drop-out rate due to GI disorders following GCSB-5 use was 4.8%. Compared to celecoxib data from CLASS, the incidence of GI disorders (23.7% vs. 31.4%, p<0.001), annual rate of PUB and gastroduodenal ulcers (0.0% vs 2.2%, p=0.004), and drop-out rate due to GI disorders following GCSB-5 use were significantly low (4.8% vs 8.7%, p<0.001). Efficacy was proven by significant improvements in Western Ontario McMaster Questionnaire (WOMAC) scale, Korean Knee Score (KKS), 100-mm pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and physician's global assessments of patient's response to therapy (PGART).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy profile of GCSB-5 are comparable to celecoxib. These results indicate GCSB-5 is safe for a long-term treatment of knee OA patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01604239).

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.

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.

Onset and durability of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: Pooled results from two placebo trials of naproxen/esomeprazole combination and celecoxib

OBJECTIVE

To further characterize time-to-first pain relief, effect size, correlations between various outcome measures and durability of relief for single-tablet naproxen 500 mg/esomeprazole 20 mg (NAP/ESO) given twice daily and celecoxib (CEL) (200 mg) given once daily versus placebo in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Unpublished data from two double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials in which patients aged ≥ 50 years with knee OA were randomized to NAP/ESO (n = 487), CEL (n = 486) or placebo (n = 246) were pooled (NCT00664560 and NCT00665431). Acute response endpoints: 1) Time to first significant pain response, 2) Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 3) American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ) scores. Sustainability endpoints: 1) Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) and 2) WOMAC Stiffness, Pain and Total scores; and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 and 12 weeks. Effect sizes for all measures were calculated. Rescue pain medication use also was analyzed, as was the correlation of WOMAC to RAPID3.

RESULTS

NAP/ESO produced statistically significant decreases in WOMAC Pain on Days 2-7 and at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05); most APS-POQ pain assessments with NAP/ESO were significantly improved on Days 2-7 compared with placebo (all p < 0.05). A good or excellent response occurred in a median of 6 days. RAPID3 and WOMAC total/stiffness/function/PGA scores decreased significantly at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Placebo-adjusted WOMAC pain effect sizes were 0.44, 0.34 and 0.25 at Day 7, week 6 and week 12, respectively. RAPID3 to WOMAC total and WOMAC pain to RAPID3: Pain scores were highly correlated at 6 and 12 weeks (correlation coefficients >0.80). No significant differences in overall responses were found between CEL and NAP/ESO.

CONCLUSION

Naproxen/esomeprazole produced a significant absolute moderate early pain response, which was maintained for 12 weeks. RAPID3 was found to be highly correlated with the typical OA measure (WOMAC) and might be a useful clinical tool for measuring NSAID response. NCT00664560: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00664560, NCT00665431: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665431.

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.

Safe prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis--an expert consensus addressing benefits as well as gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks

BACKGROUND

There are several guidelines addressing the issues around the use of NSAIDs. However, none has specifically addressed the upper versus lower gastrointestinal (GI) risk of COX-2 selective and non-selective compounds nor the interaction at both the GI and cardiovascular (CV) level of either class of drugs with low-dose aspirin. This Consensus paper aims to develop statements and guidance devoted to these specific issues through a review of current evidence by a multidisciplinary group of experts.

METHODS

A modified Delphi consensus process was adopted to determine the level of agreement with each statement and to determine the level of agreement with the strength of evidence to be assigned to the statement.

RESULTS

For patients with both low GI and CV risks, any non-selective NSAID (ns-NSAID) alone may be acceptable. For those with low GI and high CV risk, naproxen may be preferred because of its potential lower CV risk compared with other ns-NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors, but celecoxib at the lowest approved dose (200 mg once daily) may be acceptable. In patients with high GI risk, if CV risk is low, a COX-2 selective inhibitor alone or ns-NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor appears to offer similar protection from upper GI events. However, only celecoxib will reduce mucosal harm throughout the entire GI tract. When both GI and CV risks are high, the optimal strategy is to avoid NSAID therapy, if at all possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Time is now ripe for offering patients with osteoarthritis the safest and most cost-effective therapeutic option, thus preventing serious adverse events which could have important quality of life and resource use implications. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0291-x.

Impact of concomitant low-dose aspirin on the safety and tolerability of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets in patients requiring chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy: an analysis from 5 Phase III studies

Patients receiving chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and concomitant low-dose aspirin (LDA) are at increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated (EC) naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium (NAP/ESO) has been designed to deliver a proton-pump inhibitor followed by an NSAID in a single tablet. To examine safety data from 5 Phase III studies of NAP/ESO in LDA users (≤ 325 mg daily, administered at any time during the study), and LDA non-users, data were analyzed from 6-month studies assessing NAP/ESO versus EC naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 2), 3-month studies assessing NAP/ESO vs celecoxib or placebo in patients with knee osteoarthritis (n = 2), and a 12-month, open-label, safety study of NAP/ESO (n = 1). In an analysis of two studies, incidences of endoscopically confirmed gastric ulcers (GUs) and duodenal ulcers (DUs) were summarized by LDA subgroups. In the pooled analysis from all five studies, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (including prespecified NSAID-associated upper GI AEs and cardiovascular AEs), serious AEs, and AE-related discontinuations were stratified by LDA subgroups. Overall, 2,317 patients received treatment; 1,157 patients received NAP/ESO and, of these, 298 received LDA. The cumulative incidence of GUs and DUs in the two studies with 6-month follow-up was lower for NAP/ESO vs EC naproxen in both LDA subgroups [GUs: 3.0 vs 27.9%, respectively, for LDA users, 6.4 vs 22.4%, respectively, for LDA non-users (both P < 0.001); DUs: 1.0 vs 5.8% for LDA users, 0.6 vs 5.3% for LDA non-users]. The incidence of erosive gastritis was lower in NAP/ESO- vs EC naproxen-treated patients for both LDA users [18.2 vs 36.5%, respectively (P = 0.004)] and LDA non-users [19.8 vs 38.5%, respectively (P < 0.001)]. Among LDA users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 16.1%; EC naproxen, 31.7%; celecoxib, 22.1%; placebo, 23.2%. Among LDA non-users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 20. %; EC naproxen, 36.6%; celecoxib, 18.5%; placebo, 18.9%. For LDA users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 3.0%; EC naproxen, 1.0%; celecoxib, 0%; placebo, 0%. For LDA non-users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 1.0%; EC naproxen, 0.6%; celecoxib, 0.3%; placebo, 0%. NAP/ESO appears to be well-tolerated in patients receiving concomitant LDA. For LDA users, AE incidence was less than that observed for EC naproxen. For most AE categories, incidences were similar among NAP/ESO, celecoxib and placebo groups. The safety of NAP/ESO appeared similar regardless of LDA use.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose submicron diclofenac for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain: a 12 week, phase 3 study

OBJECTIVE

NSAIDs, such as diclofenac, are the most commonly used medications to treat osteoarthritis (OA), but they are associated with dose-related adverse events (AEs). Low-dose submicron diclofenac was developed using a new, proprietary dry milling process that creates submicron drug particles (SoluMatrix Fine Particle Technology * ), enabling effective treatment at lower doses than other commercially available diclofenac drug products. This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose submicron diclofenac 35 mg three times daily (tid) and twice daily (bid) in patients with OA pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This double-blind study enrolled patients ≥40 years of age with clinically and radiographically confirmed (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II-III) hip or knee OA. Eligible patients were chronic NSAID and/or acetaminophen (APAP) users with baseline Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores ≥40 mm by visual analog scale and an OA flare (≥15 mm increase in WOMAC pain subscale score following discontinuation of NSAIDs/APAP at screening). Patients were randomized to submicron diclofenac 35 mg tid, submicron diclofenac 35 mg bid, or placebo for 12 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01461369.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy parameters included mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale score at week 12 (primary efficacy parameter) and in average total WOMAC score over 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Submicron diclofenac 35 mg tid significantly improved WOMAC pain subscale scores from baseline at 12 weeks (-44.1; p = 0.0024) compared with placebo (-32.5). Submicron diclofenac 35 mg bid provided numerical improvement in pain at week 12 that did not reach statistical significance (-39.0; p = 0.0795) compared with placebo. Submicron diclofenac 35 mg tid (-35.9; p = 0.0002) and 35 mg bid (-30.3; p = 0.0363) improved the average total WOMAC score in treated patients over 12 weeks compared with placebo (-23.2). The most frequent AEs in the submicron diclofenac-treated groups were diarrhea, headache, nausea, and constipation. The inclusion of patients with a documented requirement for analgesic therapy (OA 'flare') at baseline and the high rates of rescue medication usage in the placebo group may have impacted the study outcome for the submicron diclofenac treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose submicron diclofenac is an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of OA pain.

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.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation of intragastric pH and implications for famotidine dosing in the prophylaxis of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced gastropathy-a proof of concept analysis

Objective

Famotidine given at a dose of 80 mg/day is effective in preventing NSAID-induced gastropathy. The aim of this proof of concept study was to compare twice a day (BID) vs 3-times a day (TID) administration of this total dose of famotidine on intragastric pH in healthy volunteers.

Research design and methods

Two analyses were undertaken: (1) a 13 subject controlled cross-over 24-h intragastric pH evaluation of the BID and TID administration of 80 mg/day of famotidine, as well as measures for drug accumulation over 5 days (EudraCT, number 2006-002930-39); and (2) a pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) model which predicted steady-state famotidine plasma concentrations and pH of the two regimens.

Results

For the cross-over study, gastric pH was above 3.5 for a mean of 20 min longer for TID dosing compared to BID dosing on Day 1. On Day 5, the mean time above this threshold was higher with the BID regimen by ∼25 min. For pH 4, subjects’ gastric pH was above this pH value for a mean of 25 min longer for TID dosing compared to BID dosing on Day 1. For Day 5, the pH was above 4 for ∼45 min longer with the TID regimen as compared with the BID regimen. The mean 24-h gastric pH values when taken in the upright position trended higher for the TID dosing period compared to the BID regimen on Day 1. The steady-state simulation model indicated that, following TID dosing, intragastric pH will be above 3 for 24 h vs 16 h for the BID regimen. There was no evidence for plasma accumulation of famotidine with TID dosing as compared to BID dosing from either analysis.

Conclusion

The data indicate that overall more time is spent above the acidic threshold pH values when 80 mg/day of famotidine is administered TID vs BID. Key limitations included small study size with a short duration and lack of a baseline examination, but was compensated for by the cross-over and PK/PD modeling design. Although most of the comparisons in this proof of concept study were not statistically significant these results have important implications for future research on gastric acid lowering agents used for the prevention of NSAID-induced gastropathy.

Lower-dose diclofenac submicron particle capsules provide early and sustained acute patient pain relief in a phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are prescribed for the treatment of patients with acute pain but use of such analgesics is associated with dose-dependent adverse events (AEs). Diclofenac submicron particle capsules have been developed using SoluMatrix technology to provide analgesia at lower doses than available solid oral dosing forms. Our study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of lower-dose diclofenac submicron particle capsules in patients with acute pain following elective surgery.

METHODS

A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind study enrolled 428 patients, aged 18 to 65 years, with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy under regional anesthesia. Patients experiencing a pain intensity rating of ≥ 40 mm on a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale were randomized to receive lower-dose diclofenac submicron particle capsules (35 or 18 mg, 3 times daily [TID]), celecoxib (200 mg, twice daily [BID], 400-mg loading dose), or placebo. The primary efficacy parameter was the overall (summed) pain intensity difference measured over 0 to 48 hours (SPID-48). Secondary efficacy parameters included pain intensity difference (PID) at scheduled assessments.

RESULTS

Lower-dose diclofenac submicron particle capsules 35 mg TID (524.05; P < 0.001), 18 mg TID (393.25; P = 0.010), and celecoxib 200 mg BID (390.22; P = 0.011) demonstrated significant pain control compared with placebo (77.10) for the primary efficacy parameter, mean SPID-48. Diclofenac submicron particle capsules 35 mg TID (4.52) provided some pain control (higher mean PID) at 30 minutes following administration, in contrast to celecoxib 200 mg BID (0.80), diclofenac submicron particle capsules 18 mg TID (0.31), and placebo (0.12). Better pain control (PID) was noted across all active treatment groups at 5 hours compared with placebo (P ≤ 0.03), and pain relief was sustained throughout the treatment period. The most frequent non-procedure-related AEs were nausea, headache, dizziness, and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

Lower-dose diclofenac submicron particle capsules provided effective analgesia in this phase 3 clinical study in patients with acute pain and are a potentially promising option for the treatment of patients with acute pain.

Indomethacin submicron particle capsules provide effective pain relief in patients with acute pain: a phase 3 study

Although frequently prescribed to relieve acute pain in patients, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with dose-related gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal complications. Investigational, submicron particle NSAIDs are being developed that could provide effective pain relief at lower doses than currently available oral NSAIDs. This is the first phase 3 study evaluating the analgesic efficacy and safety of lower-dose indomethacin submicron particle capsules in patients following elective surgery. This multicenter, double-blind study enrolled patients aged 18 to 68 years who underwent bunionectomy under regional anesthesia. Patients with a pain intensity rating of ≥40 mm on a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale were randomized to receive indomethacin submicron particle capsules (40 mg 3 times daily [TID], 40 mg twice daily [BID], or 20 mg TID), celecoxib (400 mg loading dose, then 200 mg BID), or placebo. The primary efficacy parameter was the overall (summed) pain intensity difference measured by a Visual Analog Scale during a period of 48 hours. Scheduled assessments measured secondary efficacy parameters such as patient pain intensity differences. Indomethacin submicron particle capsules 40 mg 3 times daily (509.6 ± 91.9 overall [summed] pain intensity difference), 40 mg twice daily (328.0 ± 92.9 overall [summed] pain intensity difference), and 20 mg 3 times daily (380.5 ± 92.9 overall [summed] pain intensity difference) reduced pain intensity from 0 to 48 hours (P ≤ 0.046 for all 3 groups) compared with placebo (67.8 ± 91.4 overall [summed] pain intensity difference). There was some evidence of patient analgesia for celecoxib (279.4 ± 91.9 overall [summed] pain intensity difference; P = 0.103). Some evidence of pain control was observed in patients as early as 2 hours following administration of indomethacin submicron particle capsules and was sustained throughout the treatment period. Indomethacin submicron particle capsules were generally well tolerated by patients. These results suggest that lower-dose indomethacin submicron particle capsules are a potentially promising treatment option for patients with acute pain.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparative study on the safety and efficacy of Celecoxib and GCSB-5, dried extracts of six herbs, for the treatment of osteoarthritis of knee joint

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of Celecoxib and GCSB-5, a new product from extracts of six herbs, for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 198 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the Celecoxib group (n=99 patients) or the GCSB-5 group (n=99 patients) for the 12-week study. The amount of change and percentage of the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Arthritis Index from the baseline, the change in pain on walking by visual analogue scale (VAS), physician's global assessment on response to therapy (PGART) by five point Likert scale, and the amount of rescue medicine taken were used as parameters for efficacy. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were carefully investigated.

RESULTS

The WOMAC score improved in both the Celecoxib group and GCSB-5 group by 20.5 and 21.3 (P=0.79). The percentage of the change in WOMAC score were -42.0% and -38.9% (P=0.54). The pain VAS score decreased by 29.9 and 27.9 (P=0.58). The responders by PGART were 95.3% and 93.8% (P= 0.66), and the median amount of rescue medicine taken were 2.0 and 6.5 tablets (P=0.06). The incidence of ADRs were 31.3% and 21.2% (P=0.11). The most common ADRs were gastrointestinal system related; 17.2% in GCSB-5 group and 22.2% in Celecoxib group. Any severe ADR was not observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The result of this study supports that GCSB-5 is comparable to Celecoxib in terms of the efficacy and safety for the treatment of osteoarthritis of knee joint.

Complexities in the pharmacologic management of osteoarthritis pain

OBJECTIVE

To discuss challenges in the pharmacologic management of osteoarthritis (OA) pain.

SCOPE

Literature searches through MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were used to identify relevant journal articles. The search was limited to articles published from January 1982 to January 2013. Additional references were obtained from articles extracted during the database search.

FINDINGS

Pharmacologic management of OA is aimed at alleviating pain and reducing functional impairment. Limitations of the most commonly prescribed agents (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], acetaminophen, and opioids) and conflicting practice guidelines have led to physician and patient dissatisfaction. OA management guidelines advocate the use of acetaminophen, NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and opioids; however, these agents are associated with serious adverse events (AEs) and, in some cases, efficacy concerns. Acetaminophen, particularly at higher dosages, may lead to acute liver failure and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. NSAIDs present a significant GI bleeding risk and are also associated with a variety of renal complications, myocardial infarction and other serious cardiovascular complications. SNRIs can cause AEs such as hepatotoxicity and drug/drug interactions that can lead to serotonin syndrome. Opioids exhibit abuse potential and tramadol may demonstrate limited efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy concerns associated with currently available OA treatment options establish a need to develop new treatment strategies. Disease-modifying agents and novel drug formulations are currently under investigation. As these new pharmacologic options evolve, their adoption may lower risk and improve clinical outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NSAID dilemma: managing osteoarthritis in high-risk patients

For decades, evidence-based data and reported experience have warned that the common chronic oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy for osteoarthritis (OA) in elderly patients is ultimately dangerous. Elderly patients with OA are at heightened risk for developing serious gastrointestional and cardiovascular adverse events, including gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prescribing NSAIDs, especially in an elderly population, continues to be discouraged because of these significant risks. A dilemma exists for individuals who need the established efficacy associated with oral NSAIDs but who are at increased risk for serious adverse events associated with these agents. The goal of this clinical review was to evaluate the risks versus benefits of current options in the treatment of OA. This review found that topical NSAIDs seem to be the safest choice among all options to mitigate gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risks and should be considered prior to the initiation of oral nonselective or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAIDs for individuals presenting with a localized expression of OA. Further research is needed to evaluate and compare these therapies in treating both pain and inflammation effectively while mitigating safety risks in high-risk populations.