Comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of a pelubiprofen versus celecoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III, non-inferiority clinical trial

Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activity of DW-1021, the ionic complex of pelubiprofen and tramadol, in rodents

Although drugs such as acetaminophen, opioids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), are commonly used for pain management, the side effects of these drugs such as hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, nausea, and vomiting, can not be neglected. Therefore, combinations of analgesics with different mechanisms raise the possibility of developing novel analgesics. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate whether DW-1021, the ionic complex of pelubiprofen (NSAID) and tramadol (opioid), has synergic antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects in nociceptive as well as inflammation-induced nociceptive models compared to pelubiprofen- or tramadol-only administration. Strong synergistic antinociceptive efficacy of DW-1021 was observed in the mouse writhing test and von Frey paw withdrawal threshold test in the carrageenan-induced rats. The hot plate test in mice and the Randall-Selitto mechanical paw pressure test in carrageenan-induced rats revealed that DW-1021 had a preferable effect on relieving pain to pelubiprofen, but not as much as tramadol. In the carrageenan-induced rats, DW-1021 had a more potent effect on reducing paw inflammation (paw volume, width, and thickness) via the suppression of PGE₂ production than tramadol, but less than that of pelubiprofen. Taken together, our results suggest that the administration of DW-1021, a combination of pelubiprofen and tramadol, exerted a potent effect and can be used as a potential therapeutic agent for relieving pain and inflammation.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of Pelubiprofen Tromethamine vs. Pelubiprofen in Healthy Subjects

Compared to pelubiprofen, a cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor, pelubiprofen tromethamine has been reported to exhibit improved solubility and absorption. Pelubiprofen tromethamine combines the anti-inflammatory effect of pelubiprofen with the gastric protective function of tromethamine salt, making it a relatively safe class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with low levels of gastrointestinal side effects in addition to its original analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic effects. This study assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of pelubiprofen and pelubiprofen tromethamine in healthy subjects. Two independent clinical trials were performed in healthy subjects using a randomized, open-label, oral, single-dose, two-sequence, four-period, crossover design. In Study I and Study II, subjects received 25 mg of pelubiprofen tromethamine and 30 mg of pelubiprofen tromethamine, respectively, with 30 mg of pelubiprofen being the reference. Study I fell within the bioequivalence study criteria. A trend of increased absorption and exposure for 30 mg of pelubiprofen tromethamine vs. the reference in Study II was observed. The maximum cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitory effect of 25 mg of pelubiprofen tromethamine was approximately 98% compared to the reference, showing no significant pharmacodynamic variation. It is thus predicted that 25 mg of pelubiprofen tromethamine would show no clinically significant discrepancies in clinical analgesic and antipyretic effects from 30 mg of pelubiprofen.

Development of Pelubiprofen Tromethamine with Improved Gastrointestinal Safety and Absorption

Pelubiprofen (PEL), which is a commercialized non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), is associated with the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events following long-term exposure and has poor water-soluble properties. Here, a new pelubiprofen tromethamine (PEL-T) with improved solubility, permeability, GI safety, and absorption, compared to PEL, has been developed. The nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) results confirmed that the PEL-T was well formed. The powder of PEL-T showed the presence of additional 6H protons at δ 3.66-3.61 in the ¹H NMR spectrum, and shifted the sharp endothermic peaks at 129 °C in DSC, and the spectrum of distinct absorption peaks in FT-IR. In addition, compared with PEL, PEL-T showed a significantly improved solubility in various media and an increased permeability coefficient (K_p) in Caco-2 cells. Furthermore, compared to PEL oral administration, PEL-T was found to significantly reduce the damaged area in an acute gastric damage rat model. The pharmacokinetic study of the PEL-T powder showed higher maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 h to the last time point (AUC_t) than those of the PEL powder. Taken together, our data suggest that PEL-T is a recommendable candidate with enhanced gastrointestinal safety and better absorption compared with commercial PEL.

Efficacy and safety of short-term use of a pelubiprofen CR and aceclofenac in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A double-blinded, randomized, multicenter, active drug comparative, parallel-group, phase IV, non-inferiority clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

At present, information about clinical efficacy and adverse events of controlled release (CR) form of pelubiprofen, a prodrug of 2-arylopropionic acid with relatively selective effects on cyclooxygenase-2 activity, remains scarce. In this study, we sought to determine non-inferiority of pelubiprofen CR 90 mg/day compared to aceclofenac 200 mg/day regarding clinical efficacy and adverse events after a 4-week course of medication in the patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 191 patients were randomly assigned to take either pelubiprofen CR 90 mg (n = 95) or aceclofenac 200 mg (n = 96). The primary outcome variable was non-inferiority of pain reduction between baseline and week 4 when assessed using a 100 mm pain visual analogue scale (VAS). Pelubiprofen was considered non-inferior to aceclofenac if the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference in terms of pain VAS was above 15 mm (the average change of pain VAS in the pelubiprofen group-pain VAS reduction in the aceclofenac group). Secondary outcome variables were the changes in 100 mm pain VAS at week 2 versus baseline, K-Western Ontario, and McMaster University Arthritis Index (K-WOMAC) changes at weeks 2 and 4 as compared to baseline, patient global assessment at weeks 2 and 4. The frequency and amount of rescue medicine usage at weeks 2 and 4 were also evaluated as the secondary outcome variable. For safety analysis, adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and physical examinations were assessed and conducted at each follow-up visit.

RESULTS

At week 4, the pain VAS values were significantly reduced in both groups receiving either pelubiprofen CR 90 mg or aceclofenac 200 mg as compared to the baseline. However, the pelubiprofen group and the aceclofenac group respectively showed the pain VAS changes of -22 and -21.9 in the pre-protocol set and -20.8 and -21.7 in the full analysis set, confirming non-inferiority. The pelubiprofen CR 90 mg showed a reduced incidence of adverse events compared to the aceclofenac 200 mg (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Pelubiprofen CR 90 mg is as effective as aceclofenac 200 mg with reduced adverse events for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of CELBESTA® versus CELEBREX® in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 4 clinical trial

Objectives

Celecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor that is commonly used to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). CELBESTA® is a generic equivalent to CELEBREX®, a celecoxib preparation. This study compared the efficacy and safety of CELBESTA® and CELEBREX® in patients with RA.

Methods

This was a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, non-inferiority clinical trial. The primary endpoint was a change from baseline in self-assessed pain intensity determined using a 100-mm visual analog scale after 6 weeks of treatment.

Results

After a washout period, 119 eligible subjects were randomized to one of two groups (CELBESTA® group, n = 61; CELEBREX® group, n = 58). CELBESTA® was not inferior to CELEBREX® because the upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two groups (difference in the least square [LS] mean, −8.68 mm; two-sided 95% CI −16.59 mm to −0.77 mm) was less than the non-inferiority margin (10 mm). There were no significant differences in GI complications and renal toxicity.

Conclusions

CELBESTA® was not inferior to CELEBREX® with regard to the pain relief efficacy in RA patients, and the tolerability and safety profiles were excellent and at similar levels for both preparations.

Celecoxib for the treatment of musculoskeletal arthritis

Introduction: The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor celecoxib is an approved compound for rheumatoid (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA), combining both anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties with a good gastrointestinal tolerability. Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy as well as the latest safety data available for celecoxib with emphasis on the treatment of RA and OA. It is based primarily on a current literature search on PubMed and Web of Science, but also on the professional rheumatological expertise of the authors. Expert opinion: Celecoxib has been shown to be superior to placebo and equivalent to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). Many studies have been published making celecoxib a good and safe treatment option in particular in moderate arthritis and patients without established cardiovascular (CV) disease. Moreover, older patients might gain significant benefits compared to tNSAIDs due to reduced gastrointestinal events even when having a history of ulcer bleedings. Nonetheless, there is still much to learn, especially regarding the prescription of celecoxib in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. While low doses seem to be safe according to present data, the knowledge on the more effective, higher doses >400 mg/day is still limited.

The prevalence of endoscopic gastric mucosal damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients often take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids as supportive drugs. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of endoscopic gastric damage and their prescribed medications under an actual clinical condition.

METHODS

We collected the data of 1704 RA patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal fiberscopy. Gastric mucosal erosion and ulcer were classified using modified LANZA score. We analyzed these data with a multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of endoscopic gastric mucosal damage in these RA patients was 16.7% (285 cases). A multiple regression analysis indicated that prednisolone (PSL), NSAIDs and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were independent risk factors associated with the modified LANZA score. PSL and NSAIDs were positively correlated with the score, while the administration of PPIs was inversely correlated with the score. The modified LANZA score in RA patients treated with both PSL and NSAIDs was significantly higher than that in those treated with PSL alone (no NSAIDs use).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that PSL and NSAIDs were exacerbating factors for gastric mucosal damage, while PPIs usage was a protective factor. And, the combined usage of corticosteroids and NSAIDs may induce the development of gastric ulcers.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Pelubiprofen and Eperisone Hydrochloride: A Randomized, Open-label, Crossover Study of Healthy Korean Men

PURPOSE

Pelubiprofen is a novel nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic drug with at least similar efficacy and better tolerability compared with other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antipyretic drugs such as naproxen and aceclofenac. Eperisone hydrochloride is a centrally acting muscle relaxant that performs by blocking calcium channels. The combined use of pelubiprofen and eperisone hydrochloride is increasingly anticipated to promote the clinical effectiveness of pelubiprofen in relieving musculoskeletal symptoms of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and low back pain. No published data are yet available, however, regarding the pharmacokinetic interactions between these 2 drugs when administered concurrently. The objective of this study was to evaluate any pharmacokinetic interactions between pelubiprofen and eperisone hydrochloride in healthy Korean male volunteers.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Each participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 6 treatment sequences and orally received either 45-mg sustained-release pelubiprofen, 75-mg sustained-release eperisone hydrochloride, or both as a single dose in each treatment period, with a 7-day washout period between each treatment. Serial blood samples were collected over 24 hours after dosing, and plasma concentrations of each drug and the major active metabolite of pelubiprofen (trans-alcohol pelubiprofen) were determined by using a validated HPLC-MS/MS system. Pharmacokinetic analyses were conducted by using noncompartmental methods.

FINDINGS

A total of 24 men (mean ± standard deviation of: age, 29 ± 4 years; weight, 72.5 ± 7.8 kg; body mass index, 23.4 ± 1.9 kg/m²) were enrolled, and 23 participants completed the study. For pelubiprofen, the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of C_max and AUC_0-∞ were 1.02 (0.87-1.19) and 0.97 (0.88-1.07), respectively. For the major active metabolite of pelubiprofen (trans-alcohol pelubiprofen), the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of C_max and AUC_0-∞ were 1.05 (0.98-1.13) and 1.04 (1.01-1.07). For eperisone, the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of C_max and AUC_0-∞ were 0.87 (0.67-1.15) and 1.05 (0.85-1.30). None of the study participants experienced serious adverse events during the study.

IMPLICATIONS

No clinically significant changes were noted in the pharmacokinetic interactions of pelubiprofen, the major active metabolite of pelubiprofen (trans-alcohol pelubiprofen), and eperisone hydrochloride between monotherapy and combination therapy with 45-mg sustained-release pelubiprofen and 75-mg sustained-release eperisone hydrochloride.

New concepts of clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a boom of noninferiority trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to describe the most recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis that had a noninferiority design, and to focus on methodological aspects of noninferiority.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2014 and 2015 10 different RCTs with a noninferiority-design could be identified, in comparison to only a few in the decade before. Most RCTs had a rather small sample size, and had ill-defined noninferiority-margins, or noninferiority-margins without comprehensible clinical meaning. Six of the 10 trials indeed arrived at a conclusion of 'noninferiority'; four did not. Interestingly, many of the RCTs were pragmatic studies comparing strategies, and the investigators were neither blind to the treatment nor to the outcome. In addition, the treatments were often adaptive (e.g. treat-to-target approach). These characteristics are considered built-in incentives for noninferiority.

SUMMARY

In the competitive pharmaceutical landscape of rheumatoid arthritis, with many effective drugs and strategies, it is no surprise that the number of noninferiority-trial (sharply) rises. But noninferiority trials are difficult to design, conduct, and interpret, and many principles of noninferiority-trial designs are currently ignored, which may jeopardise their conclusions to some extent.