Gastrointestinal tolerability of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor rofecoxib compared with nonselective COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitors in osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND: Most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are nonselective cyclooxygenase (COX-1 and COX-2) inhibitors and are associated with a variety of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract symptoms. The roles of COX-1 and COX-2 in the pathogenesis of these symptoms are unclear. To test whether COX-2 inhibition with rofecoxib would have greater GI tolerability than nonselective COX-1 and COX-2 inhibition, we compared the incidences of (1) treatment discontinuations for GI adverse events (AEs) and (2) prespecified dyspeptic-type GI AEs among patients with osteoarthritis treated with rofecoxib vs NSAIDs. METHODS: A prespecified, combined analysis of investigator-reported GI AEs in all 8 double-blind, randomized, phase 2b/3 osteoarthritis trials of rofecoxib was conducted. Patients included men and women with osteoarthritis (N = 5435); there was no upper age limit for entry. Treatments tested included rofecoxib, 12.5, 25, or 50 mg (combined), vs ibuprofen, diclofenac, or nabumetone (combined). Primary outcomes were the time (by survival analysis) to (1) treatment discontinuation due to GI AEs and (2) first reported dyspeptic-type GI AE. Between-treatment comparisons were made by log-rank test. RESULTS: The number of treatment discontinuations caused by GI AEs during 12 months was significantly lower (P=.02) with rofecoxib vs NSAIDs (8.2 vs 12.0 per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.94). The incidence of prespecified dyspeptic-type GI AEs during the first 6 months was significantly lower (P=.02) with rofecoxib vs NSAIDs (69.3 vs 85.2 per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.97). However, the difference between treatments in dyspeptic-type GI AEs was attenuated after 6 months. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib was associated with a lower incidence of treatment discontinuations due to GI AEs over 12 months and a lower incidence of dyspeptic-type GI AEs over 6 months than treatment with nonselective COX inhibitors, or NSAIDs. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2998-3003     

Gastrointestinal side effects of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis: results of the Etoricoxib versus Diclofenac Sodium Gastrointestinal Tolerability and Effectiveness (EDGE) trial

OBJECTIVE:. To compare the gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability, safety, and efficacy of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: In total, 7111 patients (mean age 64 yrs) diagnosed with OA were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind trial. Patients received etoricoxib 90 mg qd (n = 3593) or diclofenac sodium 50 mg tid (n = 3518). Gastroprotective agents and low-dose aspirin were prescribed per treatment guidelines. The primary endpoint was the cumulative rate of discontinuations due to clinical and laboratory GI adverse experiences (AE). General safety was assessed, including adjudication of thrombotic cardiovascular (CV) safety data. Efficacy was evaluated using the least-square (LS) mean change from baseline patient global assessment of disease status (PGADS; 0-4 point scale). RESULTS: Mean (SD, maximum) duration of treatment was 9.3 (4.4, 16.5) and 8.9 (4.5, 16.6) months in the etoricoxib and diclofenac groups, respectively. The cumulative discontinuation rate due to GI AE was significantly lower with etoricoxib than diclofenac [9.4 vs 19.2 events per 100 patient-years (PY), respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.50 (95% CI 0.43, 0.58; p < 0.001). Rates of thrombotic CV events were similar with etoricoxib and diclofenac [1.25 vs 1.15 events per 100 PY, respectively; HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.65, 1.74)]. The incidence of patients who discontinued due to hypertension-related AE was significantly higher with etoricoxib compared to diclofenac (2.3% vs 0.7%; p < 0.001), although few AE were severe (3 etoricoxib, 1 diclofenac). Etoricoxib and diclofenac treatment resulted in similar improvements in PGADS from baseline of -0.78 (95% CI -0.80, -0.75) and -0.75 (95% CI -0.77, -0.72), respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment with etoricoxib 90 mg was associated with significantly better GI tolerability compared to diclofenac in this population of patients with OA. Etoricoxib 90 mg, a dose 50% higher than indicated for OA, resulted in more discontinuations due to hypertension-related AE.     

Cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitors and upper gastrointestinal tolerability in patients with osteoarthritis receiving concomitant low dose aspirin: pooled analysis of 2 trials

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of celecoxib and rofecoxib in elderly hypertensive patients with osteoarthritis (OA) with or without coadministration of low dose aspirin (ASA) (< or = 325 mg daily). METHODS: Two independently conducted, multicenter, double blind, randomized controlled trials designed to evaluate GI tolerability, in addition to cardiorenal study endpoints, in patients randomized to celecoxib 200 mg once daily (qd; n = 960) or rofecoxib 25 mg qd (n = 942) were analyzed. GI tolerability was assessed using investigator-reported GI symptoms, prespecified as abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and nausea. The pooled incidences of the 3 reported GI symptoms, regardless of severity (mild and moderate to severe), and the incidences of mild or moderate to severe GI symptoms individually were evaluated. RESULTS: In the pooled population, the incidence of the 3 GI symptoms, regardless of severity, was not significantly different for patients receiving celecoxib or rofecoxib. In contrast, the aggregate incidence of moderate to severe GI symptoms for patients receiving rofecoxib (5.2%) was significantly greater than for those receiving celecoxib (3.2%; p < 0.05). Notably, the significant difference between the 2 arms was more pronounced in the population of patients receiving concomitant low dose ASA (rofecoxib 9.7% vs celecoxib 1.5%; p < 0.001). The incidence of moderate to severe GI symptoms was similar with rofecoxib (3.3%) and celecoxib (3.9%; p = 0.564) treatment in patients who did not receive low dose ASA. CONCLUSION: While the GI tolerability was similar in the 2 arms of the entire pooled population, celecoxib 200 mg qd was associated with a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe GI symptoms than rofecoxib 25 mg qd in patients receiving concomitant low dose ASA.     

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aim: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add‐on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin. Methods: This was a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Patients with T2DM (N = 438) with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.0–10.0% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/l (<270 mg/dl) were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to vildagliptin 50 mg bid, vildagliptin 50 mg qd or placebo in addition to metformin. Results: The treatment groups were well balanced at baseline [mean HbA1c, 8.0%, FPG, 8.8 mmol/l (158 mg/dl); body mass index, 25.5 kg/m²]. The adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA1c at endpoint was ?1.05 ± 0.08%, ?0.92 ± 0.08% and ?0.54 ± 0.08% in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg bid, 50 mg qd and placebo, respectively. The between‐treatment difference (vildagliptin 50 mg bid–placebo) was ?0.51 ± 0.11%, p < 0.001. A greater proportion of vildagliptin‐treated patients met at least one responder criterion (82.1 and 70.7%) compared to placebo‐treated patients (60.4%). The AMΔ at endpoint for FPG with vildagliptin 50 mg bid, ?0.95 mmol/l (?17.1 mg/dl); 50 mg qd, ?0.84 mmol/l (?15.1 mg/dl) was significantly different compared with the placebo ?0.26 mmol/l (?4.68 mg/dl) (p ≤ 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) were reported as 34.2, 36.5 and 37.5% for patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg bid, 50 mg qd or placebo, respectively. Two patients in the vildagliptin 50 mg qd and one in the placebo group reported serious AEs, which were not considered to be related to the study drug; one incidence of hypoglycaemic event was reported in the vildagliptin 50 mg bid group. Conclusion: Vildagliptin as add‐on therapy to metformin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated in Chinese patients who were inadequately controlled by metformin only.     

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

This 24-week, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study performed in 354 drug-na?ve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) assessed efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin (50mg qd, 50mg bid, or 100mg qd). The primary assessment was change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin A1c (A1C), comparing vildagliptin to placebo by ANCOVA. Baseline A1C averaged 8.4% and the between-treatment difference (vildagliptin-placebo) in adjusted mean change (AMDelta) in A1C was -0.5+/-0.2% (P=0.011), -0.7+/-0.2% (P<0.001), and -0.9+/-0.2% (P<0.001) in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg qd, 50 mg bid, or 100 mg qd, respectively. Baseline FPG averaged 10.5 mmol/L; the between-treatment difference in AMDelta FPG was -0.6+/-0.4 mmol/L in patients receiving vildagliptin 50mg qd and -1.3+/-0.4 mmol/L (P=0.001) in both groups receiving 100mg daily. Relative to baseline, body weight did not change significantly in any of the three vildagliptin groups and decreased by 1.4+/-0.4 kg in the placebo group. Adverse events (AEs) occurred with similar frequency in each group: 55.8%, 59.3%, 59.3%, and 57.6% of patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg qd, 50 mg bid, 100 mg qd, or placebo, respectively, experienced an AE. No confirmed hypoglycemia was reported. Conclusion: Vildagliptin is effective and well-tolerated in drug-na?ve patients with T2DM and 100 mg vildagliptin provides similar clinical benefit whether given as single or in divided doses.     

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, 6-Day Evaluation of Two Doses of Misoprostol in Gastroduodenal Mucosal Protection against Damage from Aspirin and Effect on Bowel Habits

Ninety-one normal, healthy volunteers participated in a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel group study: 1) to compare the prostaglandin E1 analog, misoprostol, given at a dose of 200 micrograms bid, with the recommended dose of 200 micrograms qid in protecting the gastroduodenal mucosa against injury due to anti-inflammatory doses of aspirin (3900 mg/day); and 2) to determine whether the reduced dose was associated with a lesser incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects, particularly diarrhea. All subjects received 975 mg of aspirin qid with meals and at bedtime. They were concurrently administered either misoprostol 200 micrograms qid, misoprostol 200 micrograms bid and placebo bid, or placebo qid. All subjects were endoscopically normal at the onset of the study and were re-endoscoped on the morning of the 7th day of therapy, 2 h after the morning dose of medications. Gastric and duodenal mucosa were assessed separately on a 0-7 scale which gave a greater weight to erosions than to hemorrhages. GI symptoms, especially bowel habits, were assessed by means of diary cards. Subjects in both misoprostol groups had significantly less gastric and duodenal mucosal injury than subjects who received placebo (p less than 0.007 for each pairwise comparison). There was no statistically significant difference between the two misoprostol groups (p less than 0.093). Subjects in the misoprostol 200 micrograms qid group had significantly more loose and watery bowel movements than the subjects in the misoprostol 200 micrograms bid group (p less than 0.013), whereas there were no significant differences in bowel habits between the misoprostol 200 micrograms bid and placebo groups (p less than 0.122). More subjects in the misoprostol 200 micrograms qid group reported abdominal pain, loose stools, watery stools, flatulence, dyspepsia, and nausea than in the misoprostol 200 micrograms bid and placebo groups. In conclusion, the adverse events in the misoprostol 200 micrograms bid group were not significantly different from those in the placebo group, and were significantly better than in the misoprostol 200 micrograms qid group. The lower dose retained mucosal protective activity that was statistically indistinguishable from that of misoprostol 200 micrograms qid.     

A double-blind comparison of the gastroduodenal safety and efficacy of diclofenac and a fixed dose combination of diclofenac and misoprostol in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

This double-blind, parallel group study was conducted to evaluate the gastroduodenal safety and antiarthritic efficacy of a fixed combination of diclofenac sodium 50 mg and misoprostol 200 mcg, compared with a combination of diclofenac 50 mg and placebo. Three hundred and thirty-nine patients with rheumatoid arthritis and no significant gastric or duodenal mucosal damage were enrolled and received study medication (diclofenac/misoprostol, 164; diclofenac/placebo, 175) BID or TID for 12 weeks. Posttreatment gastroduodenal endoscopic examinations revealed ulcers in 11% of the diclofenac/placebo group, compared with only 4% of the diclofenac/misoprostol group (p = 0.034). Four-weekly assessments of arthritic condition revealed no clinically or statistically significant treatment differences. It was concluded that diclofenac/misoprostol caused significantly less gastroduodenal damage than diclofenac, but was as effective as diclofenac alone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.     

Rofecoxib, a specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2, with clinical efficacy comparable with that of diclofenac sodium: results of a one-year, randomized, clinical trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and hip. Rofecoxib Phase III Protocol 035 Study Group

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of rofecoxib, a specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2), with that of diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of rofecoxib. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled trial in 784 adults with OA of the knee or hip. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: 12.5 mg of rofecoxib once daily, 25 mg of rofecoxib once daily, and 50 mg of diclofenac 3 times daily. Clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated over a 1-year continuous treatment period. RESULTS: Rofecoxib at dosages of 12.5 and 25 mg demonstrated efficacy that was clinically comparable to that of diclofenac, as assessed by all 3 primary end points according to predefined comparability criteria. Results from secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end points. There were small statistical differences favoring diclofenac for 2 of the end points. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib was well tolerated and provided efficacy that was clinically comparable, according to predefined statistical criteria, to that of 150 mg of diclofenac per day in this 1-year study. Specific inhibition of COX-2 provided therapeutic efficacy in OA.     

Improving medication adherence through patient education distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate utilization. Patient Education Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a computer assisted educational intervention to facilitate appropriate utilization of an antiinflammatory medication (Arthrotec) and investigate the mechanism by which it produces these effects. METHODS: A double blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial studied patients over age 50 years with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA). All patients (n = 252) were treated with the medication (diclofenac + misoprostol). Patients randomized to the experimental group interacted with a computer program delivering information about their disease, the medication, its intended and side effects, appropriate utilization (distinguishing between appropriate versus inappropriate continuation and discontinuation of medication), patient involvement in treatment related decision making, and communication with service providers. In the control condition, another computer program presented generic information about OA. Data were collected at pre-test, post-test, and 8 week followup. RESULTS: Appropriate utilization of the medication occurred more frequently in the experimental than the control group (p<0.029). Compared to controls, the experimental group demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge, realistic expectations of drug benefits, perceived ease of adherence, and self-efficacy (all p<0.05). There was no difference between the groups with regard to illness intrusiveness, pain, or disability, but there was a greater improvement in stiffness in the experimental group (-0.63; 95% CI -0.81 to -0.45) compared to the control group (-0.39; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25) at a level of p = 0.04. CONCLUSION: In conditions such as OA, where patient involvement in decision making is essential to the effectiveness of care, computer assisted education focussing on appropriate vs inappropriate continuation and discontinuation of medications has the potential to improve knowledge, increase self-efficacy, maintain realistic expectations, and facilitate adherence, resulting in more beneficial clinical outcomes.     

Effect of specific COX-2 inhibition in osteoarthritis of the knee: a 6 week double blind, placebo controlled pilot study of rofecoxib. Rofecoxib Osteoarthritis Pilot Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) specific inhibitor, rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: Rofecoxib, 25 mg or 125 mg once daily, was compared with placebo in a 6 week, double blind, parallel group, randomized, multicenter study of 219 patients with knee OA. RESULTS: Both doses of rofecoxib produced clinically significant improvement as assessed by primary (e.g., WOMAC Pain Subscale 0-100 mm, decrease from baseline: placebo: 7.1 mm; rofecoxib 25 mg: 28.1 mm, rofecoxib 125 mg: 28.0 mm; p < 0.001 rofecoxib vs placebo) and secondary efficacy (p < 0.05) criteria compared with placebo. Clinical improvement with the 25 mg dose was similar to that with the 125 mg dose. Both rofecoxib doses were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Specific inhibition of COX-2 by 25 and 125 mg rofecoxib, administered once daily, resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in patients with OA. This study confirms that COX-2 derived prostanoids are important clinical mediators of pain and other symptoms of knee OA and that inhibition of COX-1 is not required to provide clinical benefit.     

Impact of concomitant low-dose aspirin on the safety and tolerability of naproxen and esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets in patients requiring chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy: an analysis from 5 Phase III studies

Patients receiving chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and concomitant low-dose aspirin (LDA) are at increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A fixed-dose combination of enteric-coated (EC) naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole magnesium (NAP/ESO) has been designed to deliver a proton-pump inhibitor followed by an NSAID in a single tablet. To examine safety data from 5 Phase III studies of NAP/ESO in LDA users (≤325 mg daily, administered at any time during the study), and LDA non-users, data were analyzed from 6-month studies assessing NAP/ESO versus EC naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 2), 3-month studies assessing NAP/ESO vs celecoxib or placebo in patients with knee osteoarthritis (n = 2), and a 12-month, open-label, safety study of NAP/ESO (n = 1). In an analysis of two studies, incidences of endoscopically confirmed gastric ulcers (GUs) and duodenal ulcers (DUs) were summarized by LDA subgroups. In the pooled analysis from all five studies, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (including prespecified NSAID-associated upper GI AEs and cardiovascular AEs), serious AEs, and AE-related discontinuations were stratified by LDA subgroups. Overall, 2,317 patients received treatment; 1,157 patients received NAP/ESO and, of these, 298 received LDA. The cumulative incidence of GUs and DUs in the two studies with 6-month follow-up was lower for NAP/ESO vs EC naproxen in both LDA subgroups [GUs: 3.0 vs 27.9 %, respectively, for LDA users, 6.4 vs 22.4 %, respectively, for LDA non-users (both P < 0.001); DUs: 1.0 vs 5.8 % for LDA users, 0.6 vs 5.3 % for LDA non-users]. The incidence of erosive gastritis was lower in NAP/ESO- vs EC naproxen-treated patients for both LDA users [18.2 vs 36.5 %, respectively (P = 0.004)] and LDA non-users [19.8 vs 38.5 %, respectively (P < 0.001)]. Among LDA users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 16.1 %; EC naproxen, 31.7 %; celecoxib, 22.1 %; placebo, 23.2 %. Among LDA non-users, incidences of NSAID-associated upper GI AEs were: NAP/ESO, 20.3 %; EC naproxen, 36.6 %; celecoxib, 18.5 %; placebo, 18.9 %. For LDA users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 3.0 %; EC naproxen, 1.0 %; celecoxib, 0 %; placebo, 0 %. For LDA non-users, incidences of cardiovascular AEs were: NAP/ESO, 1.0 %; EC naproxen, 0.6 %; celecoxib, 0.3 %; placebo, 0 %. NAP/ESO appears to be well-tolerated in patients receiving concomitant LDA. For LDA users, AE incidence was less than that observed for EC naproxen. For most AE categories, incidences were similar among NAP/ESO, celecoxib and placebo groups. The safety of NAP/ESO appeared similar regardless of LDA use.     

Transdermal fentanyl improves pain control and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis: an open-label Canadian trial

Current treatment guidelines advocate opioids for arthritis when standard analgesics produce inadequate relief. Efficacy, adverse effects (AEs), dosing regimens, physician expertise and patient preference influence treatment selection. This study assessed transdermal fentanyl (TDF) as a treatment option for osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This prospective, Canadian open-label, 8-week trial assessed the efficacy and safety of TDF in patients with OA of hip or knee with moderate-to-severe target joint pain inadequately controlled using weak opioids. TDF was initiated at 25 mcg/h and titrated to optimal pain control. Rescue acetaminophen 500 mg was allowed (maximum 4 g/day). The main endpoint was improvement in pain control assessment rating (five rating categories); pain intensity (0-10 numerical scale), functionality (WOMAC-OA Index), health-related quality of life (SF-36 Health Survey) and global impression were also evaluated. Eighty-one patients (61% female, mean age 60 years) were enrolled; 62 were evaluable. All had failed on previous weak opioid therapy, primarily codeine or codeine combinations. At treatment end, 65% rated pain control as improved (Pain Control Assessment rating change >or=1 category; p<0.0001); mean change in pain intensity was a reduction of greater than 2 (p<0.0001); almost 50% were maintained on TDF 25 mcg/h with less than 1.3 g/day of rescue acetaminophen. At 1 month and end of treatment, changes in the SF-36 physical global scale and individual sub-scores for the pain index and role-physical scales were highly significant (p<0.0001). Improvement in functionality was noted at 1 month and at end of treatment with significant reductions in total WOMAC score, individual pain, stiffness and physical function sub-scores (p<0.0001). AEs causing discontinuation (n=32) included nausea, dizziness and vomiting. Most treatment-related AEs were mild to moderate in intensity. TDF improved pain control, functionality and health-related quality of life in these patients. The findings support current recommendations for use of opioids such as TDF as a treatment option for a sub-population of patients with OA pain.     

Upper gastrointestinal tolerability of celecoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, compared to naproxen and placebo

OBJECTIVE: To determine the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of celecoxib, naproxen, and placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: An analysis of 5, 12-week, randomized, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled clinical trials was conducted. In these trials, patients were randomized to: naproxen 500 mg bid (n = 1,099), placebo (n = 1,136), celecoxib 50 mg bid (n = 690) (subtherapeutic dose), celecoxib 100 mg (n = 1,131) or 200 mg bid (n = 1,125) (therapeutic dose), or celecoxib 400 mg bid (n = 434) (supratherapeutic dosage). The incidence and time until moderate to severe abdominal pain, dyspepsia, nausea, and any of the aforementioned 3 upper GI symptoms (composite endpoint) were determined using time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: The cumulative incidences of moderate to severe abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or nausea (composite endpoint) were: naproxen 500 mg (12.0%; 95% CI 9.9%-14.0%), celecoxib 50 mg bid (7.1%; 95% CI 5.0%-9.2%), celecoxib 100 mg bid (7.8%; 95% CI 6.0%-9.5%), celecoxib 200 mg bid (8.1%; 95% CI 6.4%-9.9%), celecoxib 400 mg bid (6.0%; 95% CI 3.6%-8.4%), and placebo (8.5%; 95% CI 6.5%-10.8%). After controlling for independent predictors of the composite endpoint, relative risks (RR) for the various treatments relative to naproxen 500 mg bid were: celecoxib 50 mg (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.37-0.77; p < 0.001), celecoxib 100 mg (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.80; p < 0.001), celecoxib 200 mg bid (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.83; p = 0.001), celecoxib 400 mg bid (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.89; p = 0.015), and placebo (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.85; p = 0.002). After controlling for independent predictors of the composite endpoint, celecoxib treatment group patients did not differ from placebo patients when reporting the composite endpoint, with p values ranging from 0.40 to 0.96. CONCLUSION: The upper GI tolerability of celecoxib is superior to naproxen. A dose-response relationship between celecoxib and upper GI symptoms was not apparent.     

Efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A combined analysis of the VACT studies

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy among 1578 patients with osteoarthritis randomized to take acetaminophen 4000 mg (n=269), celecoxib 200 mg (n=523), rofecoxib 12.5 mg (n=259), or rofecoxib 25 mg (n=527) in a double blind trial [Vioxx, Acetaminophen, Celecoxib Trial (VACT2)]. Results were also pooled with the similarly designed VACT1 trial. METHODS: Patients evaluated over Days 1 to 6 and 6 weeks with Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index. RESULTS: For VACT2, median time to good or excellent PGART response was 6, 5, 4, and 3 days for acetaminophen, celecoxib, rofecoxib 12.5 mg, and rofecoxib 25 mg (COX-2 inhibitors vs acetaminophen, p相似文献   

A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the safety profile, tolerability, and efficacy of rofecoxib in advanced elderly patients with osteoarthritis

This 6-week study was conducted to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rofecoxib (a selective COX-2 inhibitor) compared to nabumetone (a non-selective NSAID) and placebo in osteoarthritis (OA) patients aged 80 and older. Three hundred forty-one patients, mean age 83 years, were randomized. Allocations were made in an approximately 1:2:1:2 ratio (placebo: 12.5 mg rofecoxib: 25 mg rofecoxib: 1500 mg nabumetone). Least square mean changes from baseline in the primary efficacy endpoint, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status, were as follows (with negative numbers indicating improvement): -14.85 mm for placebo; -25.34 mm for 12.5 mg rofecoxib; -25.40 mm for 25 mg of rofecoxib; and -25.95 mm for nabumetone (p<0.001 for all active treatments vs placebo.) Results from secondary endpoints, including the 3 WOMAC sub-scales (pain, stiffness, and disability) and the Investigator Global Assessment of Disease Status, were consistent with those for the primary endpoint. No significant between-group differences were observed in the proportions of patients who discontinued treatment due to either clinical or laboratory adverse experiences. Renal safety (edema and hypertension adverse experiences) was similar for rofecoxib and nabumetone. No gastroduodenal ulcers occurred; however, the demonstration of gastrointestinal risk with rofecoxib or nabumetone was beyond the scope of this trial. We conclude that in patients 80 years and older, rofecoxib, 12.5 mg and 25 mg once daily, demonstrated clinical efficacy for the treatment for OA as did 1500 mg of nabumetone. Rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally well tolerated in this elderly population.     

Efficacy and tolerability of felodipine ER and diltiazem SR as monotherapy in primary hypertension: A double-blind randomized study

Summary Purpose: Efficacy, tolerability, and optimal doses of felodipine ER (FER) and diltiazem SR (DSR), given as monotherapy, were evaluated in patients with mild or moderate primary hypertension. Methods: This was a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study of 98 hypertensive patients. Following a 4 weeks placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to either FER 5 mg once daily (qd) or DSR 90 mg twice daily (bid). If supine DBP was >90 mmHg after 2 and 4 weeks treatment, the dose was increased to 10 mg FER qd or 120 mg DSR bid plus 20 mg FER qd or 180 mg DSR bid, respectively. The double-blind treatment lasted 8 weeks. Results: After 8 weeks FER treatment 70% of the patients responded (DBP 90 mmHg or DBP decrease 10 mmHg) and 50% became normotensive (DBP 90 mmHg); the corresponding figures for DSR were 63% and 37%, respectively. No statistical significant differences in BP reduction and HR were found between the two compounds. HR did not change during the study. Seven patients discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). Five patients received FER and two patients received DSR. The AEs were similar in the two groups and generally mild. Conclusions: At the highest dose levels of FER and DSR, no further BP reduction was observed, but there was a tendency to report more AEs. Both FER and DSR can be used as first-line therapy in hypertension.     

Cost effectiveness of replacing diclofenac with a fixed combination of misoprostol and diclofenac in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and health consequences of replacing treatment with diclofenac 50 mg with a fixed combination of diclofenac 50 mg and misoprostol 0.2 mg 3 times a day in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A decision tree was developed to simulate 6 months of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment for RA. The probabilities of the clinical outcomes were based on a literature review. A survey of Norwegian rheumatologists was undertaken to explore their clinical management of dyspepsia in RA patients taking NSAIDs. Valuation of health states was based on results of the Short Form 36 health survey. RESULTS: In female RA patients without any risk factors associated with serious gastrointestinal (GI) complications, the incremental cost of replacing diclofenac with the fixed misoprostol/diclofenac combination therapy was $72,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For patients with 1 risk factor, the cost was less than $16,000. With 2 or 3 risk factors, the use of misoprostol was cost saving. The cost-effectiveness ratios in males were approximately 20% higher than in females. CONCLUSION: Replacing diclofenac with a fixed diclofenac/misoprostol combination is cost effective when restricted to RA patients at increased risk of serious GI events.     

Improvement in gastrointestinal tolerability of the selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor, meloxicam, compared with piroxicam: results of the Safety and Efficacy Large-scale Evaluation of COX- inhibiting Therapies (SELECT) trial in osteoarthritis

SELECT is a large-scale, prospective, international, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group trial. Patients with exacerbation of osteoarthritis were treated with the recommended dose of meloxicam (7.5 mg) or piroxicam (20 mg) once daily for 28 days; 4320 patients were administered meloxicam and 4336 piroxicam. The incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the meloxicam group (22.5%) compared with the piroxicam group (27.9%; P < 0.001), mainly due to the significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events in the meloxicam than in the piroxicam group (10.3% vs 15.4%,; P < 0.001), while the efficacy of both drugs was equivalent. Individual GI events occurred significantly less often with meloxicam than piroxicam: dyspepsia (3.4% vs 5.8%; P < 0.001), nausea/vomiting (2.5% vs 3.4%; P < 0.05) and abdominal pain (2.1% vs 3.6%; P < 0.001). There were 16 patients with perforations, ulcerations or bleeding (PUBs) of the upper GI tract in the piroxicam group compared with seven in the meloxicam group (relative risk piroxicam:meloxicam = 1.4). Four PUBs were complicated (perforations or bleedings); none of these occurred in the meloxicam group (relative risk piroxicam:meloxicam = 1.9). The outcome of SELECT is consistent with that of the large-scale clinical trial of similar design and size which compared 7.5 mg meloxicam with 100 mg diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis, and with a previous global analysis of the safety of meloxicam. It adds further data to the proposed relationship between selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 and improved GI tolerability of non-steroidal anti- inflammatory drugs.