A randomized, clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of two doses of etoricoxib versus naproxen in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Background

This study evaluated two doses of etoricoxib (60 and 90 mg) vs. naproxen 1000 mg in subjects with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Methods

This was a 2-part, double-blind, active comparator-controlled non-inferiority study in subjects ≥18 years of age with AS. In Part I, subjects were randomized to naproxen 1000 mg; etoricoxib 60 mg, and 90 mg. In Part II, naproxen and etoricoxib 90 mg subjects continued on the same treatment; subjects on etoricoxib 60 mg either continued on 60 mg or escalated to 90 mg. Part I (6 weeks) assessed the efficacy of A) etoricoxib 60 mg vs. naproxen and B) 90 mg vs. naproxen according to the time-weighted average change from baseline in Spinal Pain Intensity (SPI; 0–100 mm VAS) (primary endpoint). The non-inferiority margin was set at 8 mm for SPI. In Part II (20 weeks) we evaluated the potential benefit of increasing from 60 to 90 mg (predefined minimum clinically important difference = 6 mm in SPI) for inadequate responders (<50 % improvement from baseline in SPI) on etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I.

Results

In total, 1015 subjects were randomized to receive etoricoxib 60 mg (N = 702), etoricoxib 90 mg (N = 156), and naproxen 1000 mg (N = 157); 70.9 % were male and the mean age was 45.2 years. There were 919 subjects who completed Part I and all continued to Part II. In Part I, SPI change was non-inferior for both etoricoxib doses vs. naproxen. In both Part I and II, the incidence of adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were similar between the 3 treatment groups.

Conclusion

Both doses of etoricoxib were non-inferior to naproxen. All treatments were well tolerated. Etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg effectively control pain in patients with AS, with 60 mg once daily as the lowest effective dose for most patients.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials Registry # NCT01208207. Registered on 22 September 2010.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1275-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of two doses of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is a common component of treatment regimens for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Etoricoxib is a COX-2 selective NSAID that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RA at a dose of 90 mg. The current study further evaluated the efficacy of etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in RA patients with active disease.

METHODS

This was a 2-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in RA (NCT01208181). Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA (according to ARA 1987 revised classification criteria) and were to demonstrate symptom flare upon discontinuation of previous NSAID treatment prior to randomization. Part I was a 6-week, placebo-controlled period to assess the efficacy of etoricoxib 90 mg and etoricoxib 60 mg, each compared to placebo, as well as to each other. Part II was a 6-week period to evaluate the potential benefit of dose escalation from etoricoxib 60 mg to etoricoxib 90 mg after 6 weeks exposure to etoricoxib 60 mg in Part I compared to maintaining a steady dose of etoricoxib 60 mg throughout Parts I and II. Primary endpoints were Disease Activity Score evaluating 28 joints and C reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) index and Patient Global Assessment of Pain (Pain) score (0-100 mm VAS) after 6 weeks of treatment in Part I. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

In total, 1404 patients were randomized in a 2:7:7:8 ratio; 1228 patients completed Part I and 713 patients continued to Part II. Both etoricoxib doses were superior to placebo on both primary efficacy endpoints (p = 0.004 for 60 mg and p = 0.034 for 90 mg for DAS28-CRP; p < 0.001 for both doses for PGAP) in Part I. Further in Part I, etoricoxib 90 mg was not significantly different from 60 mg for DAS28-CRP, but did demonstrate a small, but statistically significant decrease in baseline PGAP score vs. 60 mg (p = 0.019). In Part II, there was no significant decrease in PGAP score after increasing to 90 mg in subjects with inadequate pain relief on 60 mg as compared to subjects who stayed on 60 mg. The incidence of AEs and SAEs were similar between etoricoxib 60 mg and 90 mg in both Part I and II.

CONCLUSION

Both etoricoxib 90 mg and 60 mg are superior to placebo in relieving the symptoms of RA. Etoricoxib 90 mg vs 60 mg resulted in a statistically significant, though small, improvement in PGAP score, but not DAS28-CRP. Dose escalation from 60 mg to 90 mg in pain inadequate responders did not significantly improve efficacy. These results confirm the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib 90mg in patients with RA. In addition, this study demonstrated that etoricoxib 60 mg is also efficacious and well-tolerated in RA.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01208181 (registered September 22, 2010).

Further assessment of the clinically effective dose range of etoricoxib: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To further assess the clinically active dose range of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

RA patients were randomized to etoricoxib 10, 30, 60, or 90 mg or placebo in a double-blind, 12-week study. DMARDs (methotrexate, biologics) or low-dose corticosteroids were allowed in stable doses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients completing the study and achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the ACR index and Patient Global Assessment of Pain. Safety was assessed by physical exam and adverse experiences (AEs) occurrences.

RESULTS

Etoricoxib 90 mg was the only dose to reach a statistically significant difference from placebo (p < 0.001) on the primary endpoint; etoricoxib 60 mg approached significance (p = 0.057). Significant pain improvement vs. placebo was observed with etoricoxib 90 mg (p < 0.001), 60 mg (p = 0.018), and 30 mg (p = 0.017). Despite the use of background biologics and corticosteroids, a dose response was still apparent. A higher proportion of etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg patients had renovascular AEs (i.e., edema and hypertension) compared with placebo, although discontinuations for renovascular AEs were rare. Etoricoxib 90 mg had a higher incidence of serious AEs (n = 5; 1 was considered drug-related) versus placebo (n = 0).

LIMITATIONS

The present study was not powered to detect differences in cardiovascular or gastrointestinal safety by dose. Additionally, further research is needed to clarify the role of doses less than the etoricoxib 90 mg dose for pain management in RA patients.

CONCLUSION

Etoricoxib 90 mg demonstrated statistically superior efficacy (ACR20) compared with placebo and numerical superiority over the other doses of etoricoxib studied. Etoricoxib 30 and 60 mg demonstrated significant pain improvement versus placebo, suggesting utility for some patients.