Celecoxib and Diclofenac Plus Omeprazole are Similarly Effective in the Treatment of Arthritis in Patients at High GI Risk in the CONDOR Trial

Diclofenac in the treatment of pain in patients with rheumatic diseases

Diclofenac, a phenylacetic acid derivative, is a drug demonstrating high efficacy after oral administration in the treatment of pain and physical disability in rheumatic diseases. In view of the adverse effects associated with using diclofenac, it is necessary to consider all known drug safety information before the drug is selected for therapy and the dosage regimen is set for individual patients. Selecting an oral dosage form with specific properties determined by excipients is a method to improve the availability of the drug substance and, at the same time, minimize adverse drug reactions. An alternative to tablet or capsule dosage forms is diclofenac application to the skin. The proven efficacy of this method is further improved through the use of transdermal penetration enhancers and vehicle ingredients which provide dosage forms with specific physical properties.

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.

Management of NSAID-associated peptic ulcer disease

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use increases the risk of gastrointestinal complications such as ulcers or bleeding. The presence of factors like advanced age, history of peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori infection and the use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents increase this risk further. COX-2 inhibitors and antisecretory drugs, particularly proton pump inhibitors, help to minimize the risk of gastrointestinal complications in high-risk patients. This review presents a practical approach to the prevention and treatment of NSAID-associated peptic ulcer disease and examines the new advances in the rational use of NSAIDs.

Gastrointestinal injury associated with NSAID use: a case study and review of risk factors and preventative strategies

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents and are among the most commonly used classes of medications worldwide. However, their use has been associated with potentially serious dose-dependent gastrointestinal (GI) complications such as upper GI bleeding. GI complications resulting from NSAID use are among the most common drug side effects in the United States, due to the widespread use of NSAIDs. The risk of upper GI complications can occur even with short-term NSAID use, and the rate of events is linear over time with continued use. Although gastroprotective therapies are available, they are underused, and patient and physician awareness and recognition of some of the factors influencing the development of NSAID-related upper GI complications are limited. Herein, we present a case report of a patient experiencing a gastric ulcer following NSAID use and examine some of the risk factors and potential strategies for prevention of upper GI mucosal injuries and associated bleeding following NSAID use. These risk factors include advanced age, previous history of GI injury, and concurrent use of medications such as anticoagulants, aspirin, corticosteroids, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Strategies for prevention of GI injuries include anti-secretory agents, gastroprotective agents, alternative NSAID formulations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Greater awareness of the risk factors and potential therapies for GI complications resulting from NSAID use could help improve outcomes for patients requiring NSAID treatment.