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

Novel RP-HPLC method for estimation of a newly developed combination of tizanidine and etoricoxib in rat plasma: Eight criteria for greens evaluation

A novel environmentally friendly reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) method has been effectively validated for simultaneously measuring a prospective conjunction of tizanidine (TIZ) and etoricoxib (ETC), the combined medicine, in rat plasma. The technique employs diclofenac potassium as the internal standard, guaranteeing dependable and precise outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of the suggested combination therapy on treating inflammation resulting from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a rat model. The procedure was performed using an Agilent series 1200 model HPLC apparatus. The chromatographic conditions consist of isocratic elution mode, C18 column with dimensions of 150 mm × 4.6 mm × 5 µm, flow rate of 1.5 mL/min, wavelength of 230 nm, temperature of 50°C, and injection volume of 10 µL. The elution was performed using a mobile phase consisting of a phosphate buffer with a pH of 3.5 and acetonitrile in a ratio of 80:20 v/v. Calibration curves were conducted for TIZ and ETC within the 1-50 µg/mL range, demonstrating linear trends with R2 values over 0.999. The effectiveness and eco-friendliness of the proposed method were evaluated using eight separate environmentally conscious metrics. The addition of TIZ and ETC to arthritic rodents amplified these effects significantly. Furthermore, TIZ and ETC significantly reduced serum levels in arthritic rodents, and safety investigations revealed normal complete blood count, liver, and renal functions. TIZ and ETC appear to have antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and safe combinations, making them viable future treatment options for RA that are also safe and efficacious. Following validation by United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) rules, all goods met the criteria.

Celecoxib and Etoricoxib may reduce risk of ischemic stroke in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

Background and purpose

Previous studies reported conflicting results about the risk of ischemic stroke associated with the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to investigate two specific COX-2 inhibitors, Celecoxib and Etoricoxib, and their corresponding effects on the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with RA.

Patients and methods

10,857 patients newly diagnosed with RA were identified and sampled from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Research Database during the period from 2001 to 2009. The identification of RA was based on the criteria of ICD-9-CM diagnosis code 714.0. Patients diagnosed with cerebrovascular disease and those receiving RA treatment prior to the first diagnosis of RA were excluded. Study endpoint was ischemic stroke, defined by ICD-9-CM code. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan Meier curves were used to reveal covariates and differences by drugs in the risk of ischemic stroke. Dosages for Celecoxib were defined as ≤ 200 and >200 mg/day; those for Etoricoxib were 0 and >0 mg/day.

Results

Among 7,904 RA patients, 6,669 did not take Celecoxib and 564 (8.46%) of them experienced an ischemic stroke event. Of the 597 individuals who took ≤ 200 mg/day of Celecoxib, 58 (9.72%) had strokes. Of the 638 patients who took >200 mg/day of Celecoxib, 38 (5.96%) eventually experienced a stroke. Among the 7,681 patients who did not take Etoricoxib, 654 (8.51%) experienced an ischemic stroke, while 6 (2.69%) in 223 patients who consumed Etoricoxib had a stroke event. Consuming more than 200 mg of Celecoxib per day for <3.5 years lowered the incidence rate for strokes [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.48–0.93 for dosage and HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46 for duration, both p < 0.001], while consuming any dosage of Etoricoxib significantly decreases the possibility (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16–0.80, p < 0.001). On the other hand, consuming Etoricoxib for 8 years might have a neutral or even a potentially protective effect compared to at 3.8 years.

Conclusion

This population-based retrospective cohort study has shown that Celecoxib and Etoricoxib reduce the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with RA in a dose- and time-dependent manner.

Dietary Ingredients Requiring Further Research Before Evidence-Based Recommendations Can Be Made for Their Use as an Approach to Mitigating Pain

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 55-76% of Service members use dietary supplements for various reasons; although such use has become popular, decisions are often driven by information that is not evidence-based. This work evaluates whether current research on dietary ingredients for chronic musculoskeletal pain provides sufficient evidence to inform decisions for practice and self-care, specifically for Special Operations Forces personnel.

METHODS

A steering committee convened to develop research questions and factors required for decision-making. Key databases were searched through August 2016. Eligible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was applied where feasible. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to determine confidence in the effect estimates. The committee used a decision table to make evidence-informed judgments across decision-making factors and recommendations for practice and self-care use.

RESULTS

Nineteen dietary ingredients were assessed. No recommendations were given for boswellia, ginger, rose hip, or s-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe); specifically, although ginger can be obtained via food, no recommendation is provided for use as a supplement due to unclear research. Further, there were insufficient strong research on boswellia and SAMe and possible compliance issues (i.e., high number of capsules required daily) associated with rose hip.

CONCLUSIONS

No recommendations were made when the evidence was low quality or trade-offs were so closely balanced that any recommendation would be too speculative. Research recommendations are provided to enhance the quality and body of evidence for the most promising ingredients. Clinicians and those with chronic pain can rely on evidence-based recommendations to inform their decisions.

Conditional Recommendations for Specific Dietary Ingredients as an Approach to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Health Care Providers, Participants, and Policy Makers

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 55-76% of Service members use dietary supplements for various reasons; although such use has become popular for a wide range of pain conditions, decisions to use supplements are often driven by information that is not evidence-based. This work evaluates whether the current research on dietary ingredients for chronic musculoskeletal pain provides sufficient evidence to inform decisions for practice and self-care, specifically for Special Operations Forces personnel.

METHODS

A steering committee convened to develop research questions and factors required for decision-making. Key databases were searched through August 2016. Eligible systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Meta-analysis was applied where feasible. GRADE was used to determine confidence in the effect estimates. A decision table was constructed to make evidence-informed judgments across factors required for decision-making, and recommendations were made for practice and self-care use.

RESULTS

Nineteen dietary ingredients were included. Conditional evidence-based recommendations were made for the use of avocado soybean unsaponifiables, capsaicin, curcuma, ginger, glucosamine, melatonin, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamin D. In these cases, desirable effects outweighed undesirable effects, but there was uncertainty about the trade-offs, either because the evidence was low quality or because benefits and downsides were closely balanced.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence showed that certain dietary ingredients, when taken as part of a balanced diet and/or as a supplement (e.g., pill, tablet, capsule, cream), may alleviate musculoskeletal pain with no to minimal risk of harm. This finding emphasizes and reinforces the critical importance of shared decision-making between Operators and their health care providers.

The Efficacy, Tolerability, and Joint Safety of Fasinumab in Osteoarthritis Pain: A Phase IIb/III Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti–nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain.

Methods

Patients with moderate‐to‐severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow‐up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms.

Results

Of the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36‐week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging −0.78 to −1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment‐emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab‐treated patients and 1% of placebo‐treated patients) occurred in a dose‐dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab.

Conclusion

Fasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit‐to‐risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA.

Factors affecting the results of analgesic therapy. Results of the Russian multicentre study of NOTE (NSAID: Open-label Trial of Efficacy)

AIM

To identify factors affecting the effectiveness of NSAIDs in patients with OA and LBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a 2-week course of NSAIDs in OA and LBP in real clinical practice. The study group consisted of 3604 patients with OA and LBP (60.6% women and 39.4% men, mean age 55.0±13.4 years). According to the study design, aceclofenac (Airtal) and other NSAIDs used in the ratio 1:1. The main criterion of effectiveness was the frequency of complete pain relief after 2 weeks of therapy. In addition, the decrease of pain and general health were determined on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS). We compared the frequency of complete pain relief in patients who had and did not have the studied factors. The value of the studied factors was determined using OR (95% CI).

RESULTS

Most patients received aceclofenac (54.9%), as well as diclofenac (2.0%), ketoprofen (1.9%), lornoxicam (2.2%), meloxicam (13.7%), naproxen (2.1%), nimesulide (5.8%), celecoxib (5.9%), ethicoxib (7.1%) and other NSAIDs (4.4%); 56.2% of patients received muscle relaxants, mainly tolperisone (74.7%), vitamin B (10.4%), and proton pump inhibitors (42.8%). Complete pain relief was achieved in 54.8% of patients. The pain decrease and general health improvement were (for NRS) 63.9±13.4% and 61.7±14.8%, respectively. The efficacy of aceclofenac was slightly higher than in the whole group: complete pain relief was in 59.9% of patients. Adverse events in aceclofenac use were observed in 2.3% of patients, other NSAIDs-from 2.4 to 14.1%. The frequency of complete pain relief was higher in men: OR 1,239 (95% CI 1.08-1.418; p=0.002), who had the first episode of pain - OR 3.341 (95% CI 2.873-3.875; p=0.000), a good&quot; response &quot; to NSAIDs in history - OR 1.656 (95% CI 1.385-1.980; p=0.000) and received NSAIDs in combination with muscle relaxants - OR 1.218 (95% CI 1.067-1.390; p=0.004). The effect of therapy is lower in patients 65 years and older-OR 0,378 (95% CI 0.324-0.442; p=0,000), with body mass index &gt;30 kg/m² - OR 0.619 (95% CI 0.529-0.723; p=0.000), with severe pain (≥7 points NRS) - OR 0.662 (95% CI 0.580-0.756; p=0.002), with pain at rest, - OR 0.515 (95% CI 0.450-0,589; p=0.000), pain at night - OR 0.581 (95% CI 0.501-0.672; p=0.000) and the presence of stiffness - OR 0.501 (95% CI 0.438-0,573; p=0.000). Treatment results are significantly worse in the cases of combination of LBP and joint pain, as well as pain in the trochanter major and pes anserinus area (p&lt;0.001).

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are the first-line medications for the pain treatment in LBP and OA. Aceclofenac is effective and safe in this conditions. When carrying out analgesic therapy should take into account factors that affect the effectiveness of treatment: old age, overweight, insufficient effect of NSAIDs in history, severe pain, signs of &quot;inflammatory&quot; pain, multiple sources of pain.

Status of etoricoxib in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Expert panel opinion

Pain is one of the most disabling symptoms of rheumatoid diseases. Patients with pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or gout require effective analgesic treatment, and the physician’s task is to select a drug that is best suited for an individual patient. The choice of pharmacotherapy should be based both on drug potency and clinical efficacy, and its safety profile, particularly in the elderly population, as the number of comorbidities (and hence the risk of treatment complications and drug interactions) rises with age. In cases involving a high risk of gastrointestinal complications or concerns about hepatotoxicity, with a low cardiovascular risk, the first-line nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to consider should be coxibs including etoricoxib.

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.

[The efficacy and safety of etoricoxib versus meloxicam in the treatment of patients with gonarthrosis]

AIM

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and meloxicam in patients with gonarthrosis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A postregistration, open-labeled, prospective, comparative randomized study was conducted. 40 patients aged 37 to 75 years with primary knee osteoarthritis were examined. Therapeutic effectiveness was evaluated determining the functional index WOMAC with the use of a visual analogue scale (VAS). The tolerability of the drugs was assessed according to the opinions of a patient and a physician.

RESULTS

Both drugs caused a reduction in WOMAC and VAS scores for pain and the severity of the disease. Etoricoxib demonstrated a significantly high rate of occurrence and completeness of its analgesic effect. Meloxicam showed a less pronounced decrease in joint stiffness and an insufficient analgesic effect. The incidence of side effects was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both drugs demonstrated a good tolerability and a low incidence of side effects. The efficacy of etoricoxib was significantly higher than that of meloxicam.

Osteoarthritis patients with pain improvement are highly likely to also have improved quality of life and functioning. A post hoc analysis of a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This analysis evaluated whether osteoarthritis patients achieving the greatest pain control and lowest pain states also have the greatest improvement in functioning and quality of life.

METHODS

Patients (n=419) who failed prior therapies and who were switched to etoricoxib 60mg were categorized as pain responders or non-responders at 4 weeks based on responder definitions established by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain (IMMPACT) criteria, including changes from baseline of ≥15%, ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70% and a final pain status of ≤3/10 (no worse than mild pain). Pain was assessed at baseline and 4 weeks using 4 questions from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (worst pain, least pain, average pain, and pain right now), and also using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. We examined the relationship between pain responses with changes from baseline in two functional measures (the BPI Pain Interference questions and the WOMAC Function Subscale) as well as changes from baseline in quality of life (assessed on the SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Summaries). We also sought to understand whether these relationships were influenced by the choice of the pain instrument used to assess response. We contrast the mean difference in improvements in the functional and quality of life instruments based on pain responder status (responder versus non-responder) and the associated 95% confidence limits around this difference.

RESULTS

Patients with better pain responses were much more likely to have improved functional responses and improved quality of life, with higher mean changes in these outcomes versus pain non-responders, regardless of the choice of IMMPACT pain response definition (e.g., using any of 15%, 30%, 50%, 70% change from baseline) or the final pain state of ≤3/10. There was an evident gradient, where higher levels of pain response were associated with greater mean improvements in function and quality of life. The finding that greater pain responses led to greater functional improvements and quality of life gains was not dependent on the manner in which pain was evaluated. Five different pain instruments (e.g., the 4 questions on pain from the BPI pain questionnaire and the WOMAC pain subscale) consistently demonstrated that pain responders had statistically significantly greater improvements in function and quality of life compared to pain non-responders. This suggests these results are likely to be generalizable to any validated pain measure for osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain is an efficient outcome measure for predicting broader patient response in osteoarthritis. Patients who do not achieve timely, acceptable pain states over 4 weeks were less likely to experience functional or quality of life improvements.

IMPLICATIONS

Good pain improvements in osteoarthritis with a valid pain instrument are a proxy for good improvements in both function and quality of life. Therefore proper osteoarthritis pain assessment can lead to efficient evaluations in the clinic.

Methylglyoxal activates NF-κB nuclear translocation and induces COX-2 expression via a p38-dependent pathway in synovial cells

AIMS

There is growing evidence of an increased prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) among people with diabetes. Synovial inflammation and increased expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) are two key features of patients with OA. Methylglyoxal (MGO) is a common intermediate in the formation of advanced glycation end-products, and its concentration is also typically higher in diabetes. In this study, we investigated the effects of the treatment of different MGO concentrations to rabbit HIG-82 synovial cells on COX-2 expression.

MAIN METHODS

The MGO induced COX-2 mRNA expression was detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The MGO induced COX-2 protein production and its signaling pathways were detected by western blotting. The nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) nuclear translocation by MGO was examined by immunofluorescence.

KEY FINDINGS

In the present study, we find that MGO has no toxic effects on rabbit synovial cells under the experimental conditions. Our analysis demonstrates that MGO induced COX-2 mRNA and protein production. Moreover, MGO induces p38-dependent COX-2 protein expression as well as the phosphorylations of extracellular signal-regulated kinase, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)/p70S6K; however, inhibition of JNK and Akt/mTOR/p70S6K phosphorylations further activates COX-2 protein expression. Furthermore, MGO is shown to activate of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) nuclear translocation.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results suggest that MGO can induce COX-2 expression via a p38-dependent pathway and activate NF-κB nuclear translocation in synovial cells. These results provide insight into the pathogenesis of the synovial inflammation under the diabetic condition associated with higher MGO levels.

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.

Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.

RESULTS

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.

Italian survey on the use of anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common painful arthritic disease in adults, causes severe disability and worsens the quality of life of the patients. The aim of this survey, carried out on 147 Italian orthopedic doctors who attended an ISIAT (International Symposium Intra Articular Treatment) educational course in Barcelona, was to investigate some aspects of daily clinical practice in the management of OA: the most used pharmacological treatments, compliance to the most important Guidelines, the advantages of COXIBs in this setting and pharmacoeconomic aspects. The main results of this survey are: a) inflammation has become the main target in OA; b) Guidelines are a useful and valid tool for daily clinical practice; c) acetaminophen is no longer a valid therapeutical option for OA patients; d) anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs and COXIBs) have a primary role in the management of OA, due to their dual activity (anti-inflammatory and analgesic); e) selectivity of COXIBs for COX-2 is very important; f) within the COXIB class, the therapeutic value of etoricoxib has been widely recognized, especially in terms of safety and cost/benefit ratio.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated.

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of treatments of primary knee OA using a network meta-analysis design, which estimates relative effects of all treatments against each other.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through 15 August 2014, and unpublished data.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of adults with knee OA comparing 2 or more of the following: acetaminophen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, oral placebo, and IA placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Standardized mean differences were calculated for pain, function, and stiffness at 3-month follow-up.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects model; 137 studies comprising 33,243 participants were identified. For pain, all interventions significantly outperformed oral placebo, with effect sizes from 0.63 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.39 to 0.88) for the most efficacious treatment (hyaluronic acid) to 0.18 (CrI, 0.04 to 0.33) for the least efficacious treatment (acetaminophen). For function, all interventions except IA corticosteroids were significantly superior to oral placebo. For stiffness, most of the treatments did not significantly differ from one another.

LIMITATION

Lack of long-term data, inadequate reporting of safety data, possible publication bias, and few head-to-head comparisons.

CONCLUSION

This method allowed comparison of common treatments of knee OA according to their relative efficacy. Intra-articular treatments were superior to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, possibly because of the integrated IA placebo effect. Small but robust differences were observed between active treatments. All treatments except acetaminophen showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain. This information, along with the safety profiles and relative costs of included treatments, will be helpful for individualized patient care decisions.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Efficacy and safety of ginger in osteoarthritis patients: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of oral ginger for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) by carrying out a systematic literature search followed by meta-analyses on selected studies. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral ginger treatment with placebo in OA patients aged >18 years. Outcomes were reduction in pain and reduction in disability. Harm was assessed as withdrawals due to adverse events. The efficacy effect size was estimated using Hedges' standardized mean difference (SMD), and safety by risk ratio (RR). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). Out of 122 retrieved references, 117 were discarded, leaving five trials (593 patients) for meta-analyses. The majority reported relevant randomization procedures and blinding, but an inadequate intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Following ginger intake, a statistically significant pain reduction SMD = -0.30 ([95% CI: [(-0.50, -0.09)], P = 0.005]) with a low degree of inconsistency among trials (I(2) = 27%), and a statistically significant reduction in disability SMD = -0.22 ([95% CI: ([-0.39, -0.04)]; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%]) were seen, both in favor of ginger. Patients given ginger were more than twice as likely to discontinue treatment compared to placebo ([RR = 2.33; 95% CI: (1.04, 5.22)]; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%]). Ginger was modestly efficacious and reasonably safe for treatment of OA. We judged the evidence to be of moderate quality, based on the small number of participants and inadequate ITT populations. Prospero: CRD42011001777.

Costo Utilidad de Colágena Polivinil-Pirrolidona en el Tratamiento de Osteartrosis de Rodilla en México

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-utility of collagen-polyvinyl pyrrolidone (collagen-PVP), a new drug developed and manufactured in Mexico, compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in Mexico.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model with a lifetime horizon was designed to evaluate the costs and outcomes (QALYs) of collagen-PVP compared to NSAIDs in patients with OA. Data from randomized clinical trials conducted in México were obtained as input for probabilities. Utility values ​​were elicited from international publications and costs information and service utilization was obtained from official publications of the Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social - IMSS. Cost per quality-adjusted life-years was calculated by using the Mexican Healthcare payer perspective. A discount rate of 5% for both cost and outcomes was used. Sensitivity analyzes were performed with variations in the parameters of gender, age, and price of collagen-PVP.

RESULTS

Patients treated with collagen-PVP showed a gain of 6.62 QALYs compared with 5.36 in patients with NSAIDs. The cost-utility ratio was higher in the NSAID group (MEX$ 170,010.76/QALY) compared to collagen-PVP (MEX $ 130,953.63/QALY). The incremental cost-utility ratio was MEX $ 35,194.16.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first economic evaluation of a new medication developed in Mexico and conducted partially with local data. The results of this study allow concluding that collagen-PVP is deemed as the dominant alternative compared with NSAIDs in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

Pharmacologic treatment of hand-, knee- and hip-osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a joint disease of high prevalence and affects > 90 % of the population, depending on several risk factors. Symptomatic OA is less frequent, but requires an individually tailored therapeutic regimen consisting of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment modalities. Pharmacologic therapy, however, is mainly limited to analgetic and anti-inflammatory agents; structure modifying remedies do not exist. The therapeutic approach to hand-, knee- and hip-OA is basically similar and differs only at some minor points. Generally, topical agents or paracetamol are recommended as first-line agents. If unsuccessful oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or COX-2-selctive inhibitors should be introduced. Tramadol is an option in the case patients will not respond satisfactorily to NSAIDs. Glucosamine and chondroitine sulphate are no longer recommended in knee and hip OA, but chondroitine might be efficient in treating hand OA. Oral NSAIDs should be prescribed with caution due to potential side effects. Opioids are not recommended as their benefits are outweighed by an increased risk for serious adverse events.