Need for common internal controls when assessing the relative efficacy of pharmacologic agents using a meta‐analytic approach: Case study of cyclooxygenase 2–selective inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis

Objective

To evaluate the role of common internal controls in a meta‐analysis of the relative efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2–selective inhibitors (coxibs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A systematic search of Medline and US Food and Drug Administration electronic databases was performed to identify randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trials of coxibs (etoricoxib, celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib) in patients with hip and/or knee OA. The effect size for coxibs and common active internal controls (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], naproxen) were determined by the mean changes from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscores as compared with placebo.

Results

The effect size for all coxib groups combined (0.44) indicated greater efficacy as compared with placebo, but significant heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) was observed. Rofecoxib at dosages of 12.5 mg/day and 25 mg/day and etoricoxib at a dosage of 60 mg/day had similar effect sizes (0.68 and 0.73, respectively), but these effect sizes were comparatively greater than those for both celecoxib at dosages of 200 mg/day and 100 mg twice daily or valdecoxib at a dosage of 10 mg/day (0.26 and 0.16, respectively). The effect sizes for NSAIDs or naproxen versus placebo, as determined using data from rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials, were consistently higher than the effect sizes derived from trials of celecoxib/valdecoxib. Significant heterogeneity was present in the overall effect size for NSAIDs (P = 0.007) and naproxen (P = 0.04) groups based on data available from all coxib trials.

Conclusion

Coxibs and common active internal controls showed larger effect sizes versus placebo in the rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials than in the celecoxib/valdecoxib trials. These findings suggest systematic differences among published coxib trials and emphasize the need for direct‐comparison trials. In the absence of such trials, common internal controls should be assessed when performing indirect meta‐analytic comparisons.

     

Comparison of the COX‐inhibiting nitric oxide donator AZD3582 and rofecoxib in treating the signs and symptoms of Osteoarthritis of the knee

Objective

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZD3582 with that of rofecoxib, naproxen, and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, and to define the dosage of AZD3582 (125 mg, 375 mg, and 750 mg twice a day) that is noninferior in efficacy to rofecoxib.

Methods

A double‐blind study of 672 patients with OA of the knee was conducted. Patients who experienced increased pain on withdrawal of analgesia were randomized to receive AZD3582 125 mg, 375 mg, or 750 mg twice a day; rofecoxib 25 mg once a day; naproxen 500 mg twice a day; or placebo for 6 weeks. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety were monitored throughout the study. The primary variable was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale from baseline to the mean of weeks 4 and 6, comparing AZD3582 with placebo for superiority and with rofecoxib for noninferiority using a predefined margin of 10 mm.

Results

For the primary variable, AZD3582 375 mg and 750 mg were superior to placebo (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] ?12 mm [?18, ?6], P < 0.001 and ?13 mm [?19, ?7], P < 0.001, respectively) and were noninferior to rofecoxib (?2 mm [?8, 4], P < 0.001 and ?3 mm [?9, 3], P < 0.001, respectively). AZD3582 125 mg was not significantly different from placebo for the primary variable.

Conclusion

AZD3582 375 mg and 750 mg twice a day were superior to placebo and as effective as rofecoxib 25 mg/day in treating the signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. AZD3582 125 mg twice a day was not statistically different from placebo.

     

Efficacy and safety of four doses of lumiracoxib versus diclofenac in patients with knee or hip primary osteoarthritis: A phase II,four‐week,multicenter, randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the novel cyclooxygenase 2‐selective inhibitor lumiracoxib with placebo and diclofenac in osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

Adults (n = 583) with knee or hip OA were randomized to receive for 4 weeks lumiracoxib 50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily or 400 mg once daily; placebo; or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily. Efficacy assessments included overall joint pain intensity and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales; tolerability was evaluated by adverse event and physician reporting.

Results

All lumiracoxib doses were superior to placebo in relieving pain, improving stiffness, and improving physical function after 4 weeks. At study endpoint, pain relief was comparable among all lumiracoxib dosages and similar to diclofenac. Lumiracoxib tolerability was superior to diclofenac and comparable to placebo.

Conclusion

Lumiracoxib provides predictable and sustained relief from pain, stiffness, and impaired physical function in OA. Lumiracoxib shows clinically comparable efficacy and superior tolerability to diclofenac.

     

Efficacy of celecoxib,a cyclooxygenase 2–specific inhibitor,in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: A six‐week controlled study with comparison against placebo and against a conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug

Objective

To evaluate the short‐term efficacy of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2–specific inhibitor, in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Methods

The study was a 6‐week randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial with 3 treatment arms: placebo, ketoprofen 100 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 100 mg twice daily. Patients who had AS according to the modified New York criteria, without peripheral synovitis and with active disease (pain ≥40 mm on a 100‐mm visual analog scale [VAS] and an increase in pain of at least 30% after nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug withdrawal) were eligible for study. Primary outcome measures were change in pain intensity (VAS) and change in functional impairment (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]).

Results

Of the 246 randomized patients, 76 were allocated to receive placebo, 90 ketoprofen, and 80 celecoxib. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups at study entry. During the 6 weeks of the study, the decrease in pain and functional impairment was greater in the active treatment groups than in the placebo group, with a trend in favor of celecoxib when the 2 active treatments were compared. The mean changes were −13 mm, −21 mm, and −27 mm (P = 0.006) for pain and 1, −6, and −12 (P = 0.0008) for BASFI score in the placebo, ketoprofen, and celecoxib groups, respectively. During treatment, the number of patients reporting epigastric pain was 6 (8%), 13 (14%), and 10 (13%) in the placebo, ketoprofen, and celecoxib groups, respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this study confirm the clinically relevant antiinflammatory effect of celecoxib at a 200‐mg daily dosage, with significant improvement of both pain and function in patients with AS.

     

The safety of celecoxib in patients with aspirin‐sensitive asthma

Objective

To determine whether celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase 2 (COX‐2) inhibitor, cross‐reacts in patients with aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) with asthma.

Methods

Sixty patients with asthma underwent double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled oral challenges with celecoxib (100 mg, 200 mg, and 2 placebos) over 48 hours in our General Clinical Research Center. The next day, sensitivity to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was proven in all patients with the use of single‐blinded ASA challenges.

Results

None of the 60 patients experienced any symptoms, changes in nasal examinations, or declines in forced expiratory volume in 1 second during the celecoxib challenges. All 60 patients experienced oculonasal and/or asthmatic reactions to ASA, with a mean provoking dose of 69 mg. The exact 1‐sided confidence interval for the probability of celecoxib inducing cross‐reactions in AERD patients was calculated to be between 0% and 5%.

Conclusion

Cross‐reactivity between ASA and celecoxib does not occur in patients with AERD. These results do not preclude the possibility of other types of immune reactions occurring with celecoxib after prior exposure. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that inhibition of COX‐1 is a critical initiating event in the precipitation of respiratory reactions in AERD patients following ingestion of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

     

Risedronate decreases biochemical markers of cartilage degradation but does not decrease symptoms or slow radiographic progression in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee: Results of the two‐year multinational knee osteoarthritis structural arthritis study

Objective

Bisphosphonates have slowed the progression of osteoarthritis (OA) in animal models and have decreased pain in states of high bone turnover. The Knee OA Structural Arthritis (KOSTAR) study, which is the largest study to date investigating a potential structure‐modifying OA drug, tested the efficacy of risedronate in providing symptom relief and slowing disease progression in patients with knee OA.

Methods

The study group comprised 2,483 patients with medial compartment knee OA and 2–4 mm of joint space width (JSW), as determined using fluoroscopically positioned, semiflexed‐view radiography. Patients were enrolled in 2 parallel 2‐year studies in North America and the European Union. These studies evaluated the efficacy of risedronate at dosages of 5 mg/day, 15 mg/day, 35 mg/week (in Europe), and 50 mg/week (in North America) compared with placebo in reducing signs and symptoms, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and patient global assessment (PGA) scores, and in slowing radiographic progression.

Results

A reduction of ∼20% in signs and symptoms, as measured by WOMAC subscales and PGA scores, was observed in all groups, with no treatment effect of risedronate demonstrated. Risedronate did not significantly reduce radiographic progression as measured by decreased JSW or using a dichotomous definition of progression (joint space loss of ≥0.6 mm). Thirteen percent of patients receiving placebo demonstrated significant disease progression over 2 years. A dose‐dependent reduction in the level of C‐terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type II collagen, a cartilage degradation marker associated with progressive OA, was seen in patients who received risedronate. No increase in the number of adverse events was demonstrated for risedronate compared with placebo.

Conclusion

Although risedronate (compared with placebo) did not improve signs or symptoms of OA, nor did it alter progression of OA, a reduction in the level of a marker of cartilage degradation was observed. A sustained clinically relevant improvement in signs and symptoms was observed in all treatment and placebo groups.

     

Evaluation of the structure‐modifying effects of diacerein in hip osteoarthritis: ECHODIAH,a three‐year,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the ability of diacerein, an interleukin‐1β inhibitor, to slow the progressive decrease in joint space width observed in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

In this randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled 3‐year study, 507 patients with primary OA of the hip (by the American College of Rheumatology criteria) received diacerein (50 mg twice a day) or placebo. The minimal hip joint space width was measured by a central reader on yearly pelvic radiographs, using a 0.1‐mm–graduated magnifying glass.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable in the 2 treatment groups (255 patients receiving diacerein, 252 receiving placebo); 238 patients (47%) discontinued the study, mainly because of adverse events in the diacerein group (25% versus 12% with placebo) and because of inefficacy in the placebo group (14% versus 7% with diacerein). The percentage of patients with radiographic progression, defined by a joint space loss of at least 0.5 mm, was significantly lower in patients receiving diacerein than in patients receiving placebo, both in the intent‐to‐treat analysis and in the completer analysis (50.7% versus 60.4% [P = 0.036] and 47.3% versus 62.3% [P = 0.007], respectively). In those patients who completed 3 years of treatment, the rate of joint space narrowing was significantly lower with diacerein (mean ± SD 0.18 ± 0.25 mm/year versus 0.23 ± 0.23 mm/year with placebo; P = 0.042). Diacerein had no evident effect on the symptoms of OA in this study. However, a post hoc covariate analysis that took into account the use of analgesics and antiinflammatory drugs showed an effect of diacerein on the Lequesne functional index. Diacerein was well tolerated during the 3‐year study. The most frequent adverse events were transient changes in bowel habits.

Conclusion

This study confirms previous clinical findings indicating that the demonstration of a structure‐modifying effect in hip OA is feasible, and shows, for the first time, that treatment with diacerein for 3 years has a significant structure‐modifying effect as compared with placebo, coupled with a good safety profile. The clinical relevance of these findings requires further investigation.

     

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the slow‐acting symptom‐modifying effects of colchicine in osteoarthritis of the knee: A preliminary report

Objective

To determine if colchicine added to nimesulide may have a beneficial effect on osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

Methods

Colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily or placebo was added to nimesulide (a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug) in 36 patients with OA of the knee in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial over a 5‐month period.

Results

The 30% improvement rate at 20 weeks was higher in the colchicine group than in the control group receiving placebo, as measured by total Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis scores (57.9% versus 23.5%) and visual analog scale for index knee pain (52.6% versus 17.6%) (primary measures of response). The significance persisted on combined analysis by Mantel‐Haenszel test (P = 0.062). Comparison of means also showed significant improvement in the colchicine group versus the control group in a multivariate analysis performed using T² test (P = 0.0115).

Conclusion

Among patients with OA of the knee, the group receiving colchicine plus nimesulide exhibited significantly greater symptomatic benefit at 20 weeks than did the control group receiving nimesulide plus placebo.

     

Steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the hip: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To determine the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial.

Methods

Fifty‐two patients with symptomatic hip OA were randomly allocated to receive placebo (10 mg bipuvicaine, 2 ml saline) (n = 21) or corticosteroid treatment (10 mg bipuvicaine, 40 mg triamcinolone hexacetonide) (n = 31). Patients were followed up for 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the pain improvement response, defined as a 20% decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) pain score (on 5 100‐mm visual analog scales [VAS]) (WOMAC20) from baseline to 2 months postinjection. Secondary outcomes were a 50% decrease in the WOMAC pain score (WOMAC50), changes in other WOMAC subscale scores, patient's global assessment of health (on a 100‐mm VAS), and Short Form 36 (SF‐36) quality of life indices. Analyses were based on the intent‐to‐treat principle.

Results

The mean WOMAC pain score fell 49.2% (decreasing from 310.1 mm to 157.4 mm) at 2 months postinjection in patients receiving corticosteroid, compared with a decrease of 2.5% (from 314.3 mm to 306.5 mm) in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). The proportion of WOMAC20 responders at 2 months' followup was significantly higher in the corticosteroid group (67.7%) compared with the placebo group (23.8%) (P = 0.004); similar proportions of WOMAC50 responders were observed between groups (61.3% in the corticosteroid group versus 14.3% in the placebo group; P = 0.001). Response differences were maintained at 3 months' followup (58.1% responders in the corticosteroid group versus 9.5% responders in the placebo group; P = 0.004). Significant differences in the WOMAC stiffness and physical function scores (P < 0.0001), patient's global health scores (P = 0.005), and SF‐36 physical component scores (P = 0.04) were observed, with patients in the corticosteroid group showing greater improvements. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events between groups.

Conclusion

This placebo‐controlled trial confirms that corticosteroid injection can be an effective treatment of pain in hip OA, with benefits lasting up to 3 months in many cases. Future studies should address questions related to the benefits of repeated steroid injection and the effects of this treatment on disease modification.

     

Symptomatic effects of chondroitin 4 and chondroitin 6 sulfate on hand osteoarthritis: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled clinical trial at a single center

Objective

To evaluate the symptomatic effects of highly purified chondroitin 4 and chondroitin 6 sulfate (CS) therapy in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand.

Methods

This investigator‐initiated, single‐center, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial included 162 symptomatic patients with radiographic evidence of hand OA (American College of Rheumatology criteria). Inclusion criteria included patient's assessment of global spontaneous hand pain of at least 40 mm on a 0–100‐mm visual analog scale (VAS) and functional impairment of at least 6 (0–30 scale) on the Functional Index for Hand OA (FIHOA) in the most symptomatic hand. Patients received either 800 mg of CS (n = 80 patients) or placebo (n = 82 patients) once daily for 6 months and were analyzed in an intent‐to‐treat approach. The two primary outcomes were the change in the patient's assessment of global spontaneous hand pain and in hand function (by FIHOA score) from baseline to month 6. Secondary outcomes were improvement in grip strength, duration of morning stiffness, acetaminophen consumption, and the investigator's global impression of treatment efficacy.

Results

There was a significantly more pronounced decrease in the patient's global assessment of hand pain in the CS group than in the placebo group (difference VAS scores −8.7 mm; P = 0.016). Hand function improved significantly more in the CS group than in the placebo group (difference in FIHOA scores −2.14; P = 0.008). There was a statistically significant between‐group difference in favor of CS for the duration of morning stiffness and for the investigator's global impression of treatment efficacy. Changes in grip strength, acetaminophen consumption, and safety end points were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that CS improves hand pain and function in patients with symptomatic OA of the hand and shows a good safety profile.

     

Randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial in knee osteoarthritis

Objective

To assess the efficacy of glucosamine sulfate in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A 4‐center, 6‐month, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled glucosamine discontinuation trial was conducted in 137 current users of glucosamine with knee OA who had experienced at least moderate improvement in knee pain after starting glucosamine. Study medication dosage was equivalent to the dosage of glucosamine taken prior to the study (maximum 1,500 mg/day). Followup continued for 6 months or until disease flare, whichever occurred first. The primary outcome was the proportion of disease flares in the glucosamine and placebo groups using an intent‐to‐treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included time to disease flare; analgesic medication use; severity of disease flare; and change in pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the glucosamine and placebo groups.

Results

Disease flare was seen in 28 (42%) of 66 placebo patients and 32 (45%) of 71 glucosamine patients (difference ?3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] ?19, 14; P = 0.76). In the Cox regression analysis, after adjustment for sex, study site, and OA radiographic severity, time to disease flare was not significantly different in the glucosamine compared with placebo group (hazard ratio of flare = 0.8; 95% CI 0.5, 1.4; P = 0.45). At final study visit, acetaminophen was used in 27% and 21% of placebo and glucosamine patients, respectively (P = 0.40), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were used in 29% and 30% (P = 0.92), and both were used in 20% and 21% (P = 0.84). No differences were found in severity of disease flare or other secondary outcomes between placebo and glucosamine patients.

Conclusion

In patients with knee OA with at least moderate subjective improvement with prior glucosamine use, this study provides no evidence of symptomatic benefit from continued use of glucosamine sulfate.

     

Effect of hyaluronic acid in symptomatic hip osteoarthritis: A multicenter,randomized, placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a single intraarticular (IA) injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled trial was conducted over 3 months. Patients (older than 30 years) with symptomatic hip OA (pain score of >40 mm on a visual analog scale [VAS]) and a Kellgren/Lawrence grade of 2 or 3 were randomly assigned to receive 1 fluoroscopically guided IA injection of HA (2.5 ml) or placebo (2.5 ml). Patients were followed up for 3 months. The main outcome measure was pain score on a VAS (100 mm) at month 3 compared with baseline. Secondary outcome measures were the proportion of responders defined by Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscores for pain, stiffness, and disability; and patient and physician global assessment. Randomization was computer generated. HA and placebo preparations were placed in numbered identical containers, and syringes were covered with masking tape. Physicians assessing outcomes were blinded with regard to group assignment.

Results

Eighty‐five patients were randomized to the HA group (n = 42) or placebo group (n = 43). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. At 3 months, the decrease in pain score did not differ between the HA and placebo groups in the intent‐to‐treat analysis (mean ± SD decrease 7.8 ± 24.9 mm with HA versus 9.1 ± 27.4 mm with placebo; P = 0.98). The responder rates were 33.3% and 32.6% in the HA and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.94). Other secondary end points did not differ between the groups, nor did use of rescue medication or frequency of adverse events.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that a single IA injection of HA is no more effective than placebo in treating the symptoms of hip OA.

     

Pioglitazone,a peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor γ agonist,reduces the progression of experimental osteoarthritis in guinea pigs

Objective

To evaluate the in vivo therapeutic effect of pioglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor γ (PPARγ) agonist, on the development of lesions in a guinea pig model of osteoarthritis (OA), and to determine the influence of pioglitazone on the synthesis of matrix metalloproteinase 13 (MMP‐13) and interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β) in articular cartilage.

Methods

The OA model was created by partial medial meniscectomy of the right knee joint. The guinea pigs were divided into 4 treatment groups: unoperated animals that received no treatment (normal), operated animals (OA guinea pigs) that received placebo, OA guinea pigs that received oral pioglitazone at 2 mg/kg/day, and OA guinea pigs that received oral pioglitazone at 20 mg/kg/day. The animals began receiving medication 1 day after surgery and were killed 4 weeks later. Macroscopic and histologic analyses were performed on the cartilage. The levels of MMP‐13 and IL‐1β in OA cartilage chondrocytes were evaluated by immunohistochemistry.

Results

OA guinea pigs treated with the highest dosages of pioglitazone showed a significant decrease, compared with the OA placebo group, in the surface area (size) and grade (depth) of cartilage macroscopic lesions on the tibial plateaus. The histologic severity of cartilage lesions was also reduced. A significantly higher percentage of chondrocytes in the middle and deep layers stained positive for MMP‐13 and IL‐1β in cartilage from placebo‐treated OA guinea pigs compared with normal controls. Guinea pigs treated with the highest dosage of pioglitazone demonstrated a significant reduction in the levels of both MMP‐13 and IL‐1β in OA cartilage.

Conclusion

This is the first in vivo study demonstrating that a PPARγ agonist, pioglitazone, could reduce the severity of experimental OA. This effect was associated with a reduction in the levels of MMP‐13 and IL‐1β, which are known to play an important role in the pathophysiology of OA lesions.

     

Long‐term effects of chondroitins 4 and 6 sulfate on knee osteoarthritis: The study on osteoarthritis progression prevention,a two‐year,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

To assess the long‐term effects of chondroitins 4 and 6 sulfate (CS) on the radiographic progression of, and symptom changes associated with, knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

We performed an international, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in which 622 patients with knee OA were randomly assigned to receive either 800 mg CS (n = 309 patients) or placebo (n = 313 patients) once daily for 2 years. Radiographs of the target knee, using the Lyon schuss view, were obtained at the time of enrollment and at 12, 18, and 24 months. The minimum joint space width (JSW) of the medial compartment of the tibiofemoral joint was assessed by digital image analysis. The primary outcome was the loss in minimum JSW over 2 years.

Results

The intent‐to‐treat analysis demonstrated a significant reduction (P < 0.0001) in minimum JSW loss in the CS group (mean ± SEM −0.07 ± 0.03 mm) as compared with the placebo group (−0.31 ± 0.04 mm). The percentage of patients with radiographic progression ≥0.25 mm was significantly reduced in the CS group compared with the placebo group (28% versus 41% [P < 0.0005]; relative risk reduction 33% [95% confidence interval 16–46%]). The number of patients needed to treat was 8 (95% confidence interval 5–17). Pain improved significantly faster in the CS group than in the placebo group (P < 0.01). There were no differences in safety between groups.

Conclusion

The long‐term combined structure‐modifying and symptom‐modifying effects of CS suggest that it could be a disease‐modifying agent in patients with knee OA.

     

Intraarticular injection of anakinra in osteoarthritis of the knee: A multicenter,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Objective

To evaluate the clinical response, safety, and tolerability of a single intraarticular injection of anakinra in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

Methods

Patients with OA of the knee were enrolled in a multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study and randomized 2:1:2 to receive a single intraarticular injection of placebo, anakinra 50 mg, or anakinra 150 mg in their symptomatic knee. Patients were evaluated for 12 weeks postinjection. The primary end point was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score from baseline to week 4. Safety assessments included the evaluation of adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, and vital signs. Pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in a subset of patients.

Results

Of 170 patients who enrolled, 160 (94%) completed the study. The mean improvements from baseline to week 4 in the WOMAC score were not statistically different between the placebo group and the patients who received 50 mg of anakinra (P = 0.67) or 150 mg of anakinra (P = 0.77). Anakinra was well tolerated. No withdrawals due to AEs or serious AEs, and no serious infections or deaths were reported. No clinically significant trends were noted in laboratory values or vital signs. Pharmacokinetic parameters demonstrated that the mean terminal half‐life of anakinra in serum after intraarticular injection was ∼4 hours.

Conclusion

Anakinra was well tolerated as a single 50‐mg or 150‐mg intraarticular injection in patients with OA of the knee. However, anakinra was not associated with improvements in OA symptoms compared with placebo.

     

Effects of doxycycline on progression of osteoarthritis: Results of a randomized,placebo‐controlled,double‐blind trial

Objective

To confirm preclinical data suggesting that doxycycline can slow the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The primary outcome measure was joint space narrowing (JSN) in the medial tibiofemoral compartment.

Methods

In this placebo‐controlled trial, obese women (n = 431) ages 45–64 years with unilateral radiographic knee OA were randomly assigned to receive 30 months of treatment with 100 mg doxycycline or placebo twice a day. Tibiofemoral JSN was measured manually in fluoroscopically standardized radiographic examinations performed at baseline, 16 months, and 30 months. Severity of joint pain was recorded at 6‐month intervals.

Results

Seventy‐one percent of all randomized subjects completed the trial. Radiographs were obtained from 85% of all randomized subjects at 30 months. Adherence to the dosing regimen was 91.8% among subjects who completed the study per protocol. After 16 months of treatment, the mean ± SD loss of joint space width in the index knee in the doxycycline group was 40% less than that in the placebo group (0.15 ± 0.42 mm versus 0.24 ± 0.54 mm); after 30 months, it was 33% less (0.30 ± 0.60 mm versus 0.45 ± 0.70 mm). Doxycycline did not reduce the mean severity of joint pain, although pain scores in both treatment groups were low at baseline and remained low throughout the trial, suggesting the presence of a floor effect. However, the frequency of followup visits at which the subject reported a ≥20% increase in pain in the index knee, relative to the previous visit, was reduced among those receiving doxycycline. In contrast, doxycycline did not have an effect on either JSN or pain in the contralateral knee. In both treatment groups, subjects who reported a ≥20% increase in knee pain at the majority of their followup visits had more rapid JSN than those whose pain did not increase.

Conclusion

Doxycycline slowed the rate of JSN in knees with established OA. Its lack of effect on JSN in the contralateral knee suggests that pathogenetic mechanisms in that joint were different from those in the index knee.

     

Pregabalin for the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome: Results of a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial

Objective

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and lowered pain threshold. Other prominent symptoms include disordered sleep and fatigue. FMS affects an estimated 2% of the population, predominantly women. This trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin, a novel α₂‐δ ligand, for treatment of symptoms associated with FMS.

Methods

This multicenter, double‐blind, 8‐week, randomized clinical trial compared the effects of placebo with those of 150, 300, and 450 mg/day pregabalin on pain, sleep, fatigue, and health‐related quality of life in 529 patients with FMS. The primary outcome variable was the comparison of end point mean pain scores, derived from daily diary ratings of pain intensity, between each of the pregabalin treatment groups and the placebo group.

Results

Pregabalin at 450 mg/day significantly reduced the average severity of pain in the primary analysis compared with placebo (−0.93 on a 0–10 scale) (P ≤ 0.001), and significantly more patients in this group had ≥50% improvement in pain at the end point (29%, versus 13% in the placebo group; P = 0.003). Pregabalin at 300 and 450 mg/day was associated with significant improvements in sleep quality, fatigue, and global measures of change. Pregabalin at 450 mg/day improved several domains of health‐related quality of life. Dizziness and somnolence were the most frequent adverse events. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were similar across all 4 treatment groups.

Conclusion

Pregabalin at 450 mg/day was efficacious for the treatment of FMS, reducing symptoms of pain, disturbed sleep, and fatigue compared with placebo. Pregabalin was well tolerated and improved global measures and health‐related quality of life.

     

Gabapentin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled,multicenter trial

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in patients with fibromyalgia.

Methods

A 12‐week, randomized, double‐blind study was designed to compare gabapentin (1,200–2,400 mg/day) (n = 75 patients) with placebo (n = 75 patients) for efficacy and safety in treating pain associated with fibromyalgia. The primary outcome measure was the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score (range 0–10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine). Response to treatment was defined as a reduction of ≥30% in this score. The primary analysis of efficacy for continuous variables was a longitudinal analysis of the intent‐to‐treat sample, with treatment‐by‐time interaction as the measure of effect.

Results

Gabapentin‐treated patients displayed a significantly greater improvement in the BPI average pain severity score (P = 0.015; estimated difference between groups at week 12 = −0.92 [95% confidence interval −1.75, −0.71]). A significantly greater proportion of gabapentin‐treated patients compared with placebo‐treated patients achieved response at end point (51% versus 31%; P = 0.014). Gabapentin compared with placebo also significantly improved the BPI average pain interference score, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire total score, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Problems Index, and the MOS Short Form 36 vitality score, but not the mean tender point pain threshold or the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Gabapentin was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

Gabapentin (1,200–2,400 mg/day) is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pain and other symptoms associated with fibromyalgia.