Dose response and safety study of meloxicam up to 22.5 mg daily in rheumatoid arthritis: a 12 week multicenter, double blind, dose response study versus placebo and diclofenac

OBJECTIVE: This Phase III, placebo and active controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of meloxicam 7.5, 15, and 22.5 mg daily for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A 12 week, randomized, double blind, double dummy, parallel group trial compared daily oral meloxicam 7.5, 15, and 22.5 mg to placebo (negative control) and diclofenac 75 mg BID (positive control). A total of 894 patients (18 years of age with confirmed RA who flared following an NSAID-free period) were randomized to be treated. Baseline scores for all endpoints were similar among the treatment groups. Patient assessments were at 0, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks or early termination. RESULTS: All treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement from baseline (p < 0.001). Meloxicam 7.5 and 22.5 mg was significantly superior to placebo in all 5 primary efficacy endpoints (swollen joint count, tender joint count, patient pain, patient and physician global; all p < 0.05). Diclofenac 150 mg was superior to placebo for 4 of 5 primary efficacy measures (all but swollen joint count; p < 0.05) and meloxicam 15 mg was superior for 3 of 5 primary endpoints (patient pain and patient and physician global). AUC of patient global, patient pain, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire demonstrated dose-response (p < 0.04), while AUC ACR20 showed a qualitative trend in the same direction. The rate of gastrointestinal (GI) events during the 12 week trial for all doses of meloxicam and diclofenac did not differ significantly from placebo (23.2-32.0%). GI withdrawals were comparable and not significantly different across all treatment groups (4.3-5.7%). CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrated a dose response relationship for meloxicam 7.5, 15, and 22.5 mg using AUC measurement of response for the treatment of RA. All 3 doses of meloxicam. and positive control, were effective in the treatment of RA. The overall incidence rate of GI events did not differ significantly from placebo in either the meloxicam treatment groups or the positive control.     

Randomized double‐blind clinical drug trials of meloxicam in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis knees: an Indian experience

Background: Indian data from controlled drug trials on the use of meloxicam (a new preferential COX‐2 inhibitor) and other non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in arthritis is sparse. Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of meloxicam. Patients and methods: One hundred and twenty‐one patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 133 patients with osteoarthritis (OA) knees were randomized into two different multicentric, double‐blind, drug trials of four‐weeks duration each. Meloxicam 7.5 mg (OA study) and 15 mg (RA study) was compared to diclofenac 100 mg and piroxicam 20 mg in daily dosages, respectively. Strict eligibility criteria ensured active symptomatic disease. Standard ACR efficacy measures of pain and function (including validated Indian versions of HAQ & WOMAC) were used. Protocol‐driven evaluations were carried out throughout the study. An intent‐to‐treat efficacy analysis (significance at P < 0.05) was carried out to test the hypothesis of equal efficacy between meloxicam and comparator. Results: (i) There were no significant differences between meloxicam and piroxicam in the RA study. (ii) While joint count for pain/tenderness was improved (P < 0.05) by both meloxicam and piroxicam, only meloxicam showed significant improvement (95% CI ≈ 0.7,5.6) in swollen joint count. (iii) In the OA study, though painVAS reduction was marginally better (95% CI ≈ ?15,?0.6) with diclofenac, both meloxicam and diclofenac were equally effective (95% CI ≈ ?10,2.0) in improving WOMAC‐physical function. (iv) Overall, meloxicam demonstrated a superior safety and gut tolerability profile as compared to piroxicam (maximum adverse events, 29.3%) and diclofenac. (iv) Maximum dyspepsia (6.2%) was reported by the diclofenac group. (v) Overall, the drug toxicity seen in the trials was mild, and only one patient (on diclofenac) was withdrawn due to haematuria. (vi) All treatment groups consumed paracetamol (P > 0.05) as a rescue analgesic. Conclusions: When compared to piroxicam and diclofenac, meloxicam has equal clinical efficacy and a better safety profile. Multicentric control drug trials are feasible in our population.     

Risk of serious upper gastrointestinal and cardiovascular thromboembolic complications with meloxicam

PURPOSE: To assess the risk of serious gastrointestinal and thromboembolic complications with approved doses of meloxicam. METHODS: We pooled data from clinical trials of meloxicam at doses of 7.5 or 15 mg/d. A blinded gastrointestinal adjudication committee used prespecified criteria to identify gastric or duodenal perforation, gastric outlet obstruction, or hemodynamically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. For analysis of thromboembolic complications, investigator-reported events were analyzed without adjudication. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 24,196 patients from 28 trials, most of whom had been followed for up to 60 days. Of these patients, 13,118 received meloxicam (10,158 received a daily dose of 7.5 mg and 2960 received 15 mg), 5283 were treated with diclofenac 100 mg, 181 received diclofenac 150 mg, 5371 were treated with piroxicam 20 mg, and 243 received naproxen 500 mg twice daily. Patients who received 7.5 mg of meloxicam daily had a 0.03% risk of serious upper gastrointestinal events, which was significantly lower than the risk in those who received diclofenac, naproxen, or piroxicam (P <0.02). With the 15 mg daily dose of meloxicam, this risk was significantly different only when compared with piroxicam (P = 0.03). The risk of thromboembolic events in patients treated with meloxicam at either dose was lower than with diclofenac, but similar to that observed with piroxicam and naproxen. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis of 24,196 patients demonstrates that meloxicam has a favorable gastrointestinal and thromboembolic safety profile. However, only a small number of patients were followed for more than 60 days, and meaningful comparisons were not possible in this subgroup.     

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.     

Gastrointestinal tolerability of meloxicam compared to diclofenac in osteoarthritis patients. International MELISSA Study Group. Meloxicam Large-scale International Study Safety Assessment [published erratum appears in Br J Rheumatol 1998 Oct;37(10):1142]

Although widely used, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a high incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) side- effects. Inhibition of the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme is the basis for both the efficacy and toxicity of NSAIDs. The discovery of two COX isoforms, constitutive COX-1 and inducible COX-2, has led to the hypothesis that selective inhibition of COX-2 will minimize the potential for GI toxicity without compromising efficacy. The Meloxicam Large-scale International Study Safety Assessment (MELISSA) trial reported here was therefore set up to investigate the tolerability of meloxicam, a preferential inhibitor of COX-2, compared to diclofenac. MELISSA was a large-scale, double-blind, randomized, international, prospective trial, conducted over 28 days in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis. Patients received either meloxicam 7.5 mg or diclofenac 100 mg slow release, the recommended doses for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Evaluation of the profile of adverse events was the main aim of the trial, together with assessment of efficacy. A total of 9323 patients received treatment (4635 and 4688 in the meloxicam and diclofenac groups, respectively). Significantly fewer adverse events were reported by patients receiving meloxicam. This was attributable to fewer GI adverse events (13%) compared to diclofenac (19%; P < 0.001). Of the most common GI adverse events, there was significantly less dyspepsia (P < 0.001), nausea and vomiting (P < 0.05), abdominal pain (P < 0.001) and diarrhoea (P < 0.001) with meloxicam compared to diclofenac. Five patients on meloxicam experienced a perforation, ulcer or bleed vs seven on diclofenac (not significant). No endoscopically verified ulcer complication was detected in the meloxicam group compared to four with diclofenac. There were five patient days of hospitalization in patients on meloxicam compared to 121 with diclofenac. Adverse events caused withdrawal from the study in 254 patients receiving meloxicam (5.48%) compared to 373 (7.96%) on diclofenac (P < 0.001). These differences were attributable to differences in reported GI adverse events (3.02% on meloxicam vs 6.14% on diclofenac; P < 0.001). Differences in efficacy, as assessed by visual analogue scales, consistently favoured diclofenac. In all instances, 95% confidence intervals did not cross zero, suggesting a statistically significant effect. However, differences were small (4.5- 9.01% difference) and did not reach pre-determined levels of clinical significance. Nevertheless, significantly more patients discontinued meloxicam because of lack of efficacy (80 out of 4635 vs 49 out of 4688; P < 0.01). The MELISSA trial confirms earlier studies suggesting that meloxicam has a significantly improved GI tolerability profile in comparison with other NSAIDs, including diclofenac. These results may in part reflect the preferential COX-2 selectivity of meloxicam, although the dose and other aspects of tolerability may be important. These results may provide support for the hypothesis that selective inhibition of COX-2 relative to COX-1 might be an effective approach towards improved NSAID therapy.      

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.     

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.      

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 topical diclofenac diethylamine gel in osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac diethylamine gel, 1.16%, 4 g applied qid for 3 weeks to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: Patients with OA of the knee washed out their OA medications for at least 5 drug half-lives. Patients with adequately high baseline pain scores were randomized to apply either double-blind active or placebo gel for 3 weeks. Acetaminophen (up to 2 g/day) was supplied as rescue medication. In a diary, patients recorded compliance to dosing and use of rescue medication and assessed daily pain on movement, spontaneous pain, and pain relief. At weekly site visits, patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire, which includes assessment of pain, stiffness, and physical function, and assessed pain intensity "right now." At the final visit, a global assessment of treatment efficacy was completed. RESULTS: Of 238 randomized patients, 237 were included in the intent to treat efficacy analysis. Treatments differed significantly for daily pain on movement at Day 5, and continued on most days through end of study. Peak differences were achieved in the second week. On the primary outcome, average pain on movement over Days 1-14, diclofenac gel was significantly superior to placebo gel. Scores for all 3 WOMAC indices for diclofenac gel treatment were significantly superior to placebo at Weeks 2 and 3. A significant difference was achieved on pain intensity "right now" at all 3 weeks. At the end of the study, patients rated diclofenac gel as significantly more effective in treating the pain of OA of the knee (p = 0.03) compared to placebo. There were no safety issues concerning adverse events or laboratory values. CONCLUSION: Diclofenac gel was effective and safe for relief of symptoms of OA of the knee over 3 weeks of dosing.     

Celecoxib versus diclofenac in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE: A clinical trial was conducted in 600 patients with OA of the knee to test the hypothesis that the specific COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, has equivalent efficacy and a superior tolerability/safety profile when compared to diclofenac, the current worldwide standard of care. METHODS: Patients were administered celecoxib 100 mg BID, diclofenac 50 mg TID or placebo for 6 weeks in a multicentre, double-blind. placebo-controlled trial. RESULTS: Primary efficacy measures (index joint pain by VAS, WOMAC index) indicated statistically significant improvement versus placebo for both celecoxib and diclofenac and no statistically significant differences between celecoxib and diclofenac. American Pain Society (APS) measures to assess the rapidity of onset of action showed statistically significant and comparable pain relief versus placebo within 24 h for both celecoxib and diclofenac. More diclofenac patients reported GI side effects than patients treated with either placebo or celecoxib. Diclofenac-treated patients experienced statistically significant elevations in mean hepatic transaminases and serum creatinine and reductions in haemoglobin concentration when compared to placebo, events not observed with celecoxib. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib 200 mg daily is as effective as diclofenac 150 mg daily for relieving signs and symptoms of OA of the knee, including pain, and has a rapid onset of action. However, celecoxib appears to have a superior safety and tolerability profile.     

Endoscopic Comparison of the Gastroduodenal Safety and the Effects on Arachidonic Acid Products between Meloxicam and Piroxicam in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis

Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy, the gastroduodenal safety, and the effects on arachidonic acid products of meloxicam, a new acidic enolic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug which preferentially inhibits cyclo-oxygenase-2 over cyclo-oxygenase-1, versus piroxicam in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Meloxicam 7.5 mg or piroxicam 20 mg daily was administered for 4 weeks in this double-blind parallel-groups randomised study. The efficacy for pain relief of the two tested medications was assessed by means of visual analogue scale and other clinical parameters. Pre- and post-treatment endoscopies were performed, and the findings were scored and recorded. The gastric fluid was aspirated at each time and prostaglandin E₂, thromboxane B₂ and leukotriene B₄ were determined by ELISA. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the primary efficacy. Changes in endoscopic findings by means of Lanza score showed statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in favour of meloxicam at all sites – gastric, duodenal and total. Within-group comparisons showed a statistically significant difference (worsening) in gastric and total score with piroxicam, but no significant difference with meloxicam. The frequency of clinically relevant cases (total score >2) also showed a statistically significant worsening in the piroxicam group. The better GI tolerability of meloxicam was also suggested by fewer adverse GI events and no withdrawals due to adverse events compared with piroxicam. The pre-/post-study gastric juice concentration of PGE₂, TXB₂, and LTB₄ in the meloxicam group was 135.2 ± 85.8/71.2 ± 32.2, 116.3 ± 81.7/99.4 ± 107.5 and 388 ± 321/223 ± 98 pg/ml respectively. The pre-/post-study gastric juice concentration of PGE₂, TXB₂ and LTB₄ in the piroxicam group was 105.7 ± 43.1/68.2 ± 34.9, 94.0 ± 50.9/105.9 ± 121.1 and 625 ± 1574/828 ± 1464 pg/ml, respectively. Both meloxicam and piroxicam significantly inhibited gastric PGE₂ levels after 4 weeks’ treatment; however, there was no difference between these two groups. Neither of these medications had an effect on TXB₂. Only meloxicam inhibited LTB₄ concentration significantly, and the between-groups difference was significant. Meloxicam 7.5 mg once daily had better gastrointestinal tolerability and an efficacy comparable to that of piroxicam 20 mg over 4 weeks in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Received: 18 April 2000 / Accepted: 17 August 2000     

Evaluation of analgesic effect,joint function recovery and safety of meloxicam in knee osteoarthritis patients who receive total knee arthroplasty: A randomized,controlled, double-blind study

Meloxicam is commonly administrated to control postoperative pain in orthopedic surgery, while its efficacy in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is not clear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the postoperative analgesic effect and tolerance of meloxicam in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing TKA.Totally, 128 knee OA patients scheduled for TKA were enrolled in this randomized, controlled, double-blind study, then randomized into meloxicam group (N = 65) and control group (N = 63) as 1:1 ratio. Patients took meloxicam or placebo from 4 hours (h) to 72 h after TKA. Patients were followed up at 6 h, 12 h, day (D)1, D2, D3, D7, month (M)1, and M3.Pain visual analog scale score at rest was decreased in meloxicam group at 12 h, D1 and D3 compared to control group; pain visual analog scale score at flexion was reduced in meloxicam group at 6 h, 12 h, D1, D2, and D3 compared to control group. Additional and total consumption of patient-controlled analgesia were both attenuated in meloxicam group compared to control group. Furthermore, patient satisfaction score was higher on D1, D2, D3 in meloxicam group compared to control group. However, no difference of hospital for special surgery knee score score at M1 or M3 was found between the 2 groups. Moreover, the occurrence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups.Meloxicam displays good effect on controlling postoperative pain and improving patient satisfaction, while does not affect long-term knee function recovery or safety profile in knee OA patients undergoing TKA.     

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial of two doses of meloxicam compared with naproxen in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: short- and long-term efficacy and safety results

OBJECTIVE: In an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial we evaluated the short-term (3 months) and long-term (12 months) efficacy and safety of 2 different doses of meloxicam oral suspension compared with the efficacy and safety of naproxen oral suspension in children with oligoarticular-course (oligo-course) or polyarticular-course (poly-course) juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Children ages 2-16 years who had active oligo-course or poly-course JIA and who required therapy with a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug were eligible for this trial. Patients were randomly allocated to receive therapy with meloxicam oral suspension, 0.125 mg/kg body weight in a single daily dose; meloxicam oral suspension, 0.25 mg/kg body weight in a single daily dose; or naproxen, 10 mg/kg body weight in 2 daily doses. The trial drugs were administered in a double-blind, double-dummy design for up to 12 months. Response rates were determined according to the American College of Rheumatology pediatric 30% improvement criteria (ACR pediatric 30). Safety parameters were assessed by evaluating the frequency of adverse events in the 3 groups. RESULTS: Of 232 patients enrolled, 225 received treatment, 6 were not eligible for randomization, and 1 randomized patient was not treated. One hundred eighty-two patients (81%) completed the 12-month treatment period. Response rates according to the ACR pediatric 30 criteria improved from month 3 to month 12, as follows: from 63% to 77% in the meloxicam 0.125 mg/kg group, from 58% to 76% in the meloxicam 0.25 mg/kg group, and from 64% to 74% in the naproxen group. No statistically significant differences in response rates were observed between the groups. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events or abnormal laboratory values between the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The short- and long-term safety and efficacy of meloxicam oral suspension appear to be comparable with the safety and efficacy of naproxen oral suspension in the treatment of oligo-course and poly-course JIA. The once-daily administration of meloxicam oral suspension might represent an improvement in the treatment of JIA.     

A randomized trial of the efficacy and tolerability of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib vs ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis. Rofecoxib/Ibuprofen Comparator Study Group

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit both cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). It is not known whether a specific inhibitor of COX-2 will provide efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) comparable with NSAIDs. Therefore, we compared the efficacy and safety of the rofecoxib, which specifically inhibits COX-2, with those of the NSAID ibuprofen in patients with OA. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib (12.5 and 25 mg once daily) with ibuprofen (800 mg 3 times daily). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind trial of 809 adults with OA was conducted. Patients with OA in whom the knee or hip was the primary source of pain were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment groups on demonstration of disease activity: placebo; rofecoxib, 12.5 or 25 mg once daily; or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily. Clinical efficacy and safety were monitored during a 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: Both doses of rofecoxib demonstrated efficacy clinically comparable with ibuprofen as assessed by 3 primary end points (pain walking on a flat surface [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index], patient global assessment of response to therapy, and investigator global assessment of disease status) according to predefined comparability criteria. Both rofecoxib doses and the ibuprofen dose provided significantly (P<.001) greater efficacy than placebo on all primary end points. Results from secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end points. All treatments were well tolerated; the overall incidence rates of clinical adverse experiences were not significantly different (P>.05) among the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib was well tolerated and provided clinical efficacy comparable with a high dose of the NSAID ibuprofen.     

Equivalence study of a topical diclofenac solution (pennsaid) compared with oral diclofenac in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE:. To compare the safety and efficacy of a topical diclofenac solution versus oral diclofenac in relieving the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy equivalence trial. METHODS: A total of 622 men and women with radiological evidence of primary knee OA and mild to severe symptoms were randomly assigned to treatment with a topical diclofenac solution plus placebo oral capsules, or placebo topical solution plus oral diclofenac (50 mg) capsules. Patients applied 50 drops of study solution and took 1 study capsule 3 times daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy variables were pain and physical function, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) VA 3.1 OA Index, and patient global assessment (PGA). Equivalence in the per-protocol group was based on previously defined ranges of clinically significant difference. Safety was assessed by evaluation of adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory data. RESULTS: The difference in mean (95% CI) change scores (final minus baseline) between treatments was 13.3 mm (-8.6 to 35.2) for pain (total scale 500 mm), 71.0 mm (-2.4 to 144.5) for physical function (total scale 1700 mm), and 4.3 mm (-1.2 to 9.8) for PGA (total scale 100 mm). The CI for each efficacy variable fell within the predefined equivalence ranges (pain, +/- 75 mm; physical function, +/- 255 mm; PGA, +/- 20 mm), indicating that no clinically relevant difference was found between the 2 treatment arms. Safety analyses of patients applying topical diclofenac solution revealed some minor skin irritation at the application site--mostly skin dryness in 83/311 (27%) patients--but a significantly reduced incidence, relative to oral diclofenac, of total and severe gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, including dyspepsia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea. The number of patients developing abnormal liver function tests (including clinically significant elevation), hemoglobin, and creatinine clearance was significantly higher in the oral diclofenac group. CONCLUSION: Application of this topical diclofenac solution to the knee of patients with OA produced relief of symptoms equivalent to oral diclofenac, with minor local skin irritation, but significantly reduced incidence of diclofenac-related GI complaints and abnormal laboratory values.     

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). INTERVENTIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the hand

OBJECTIVE: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study was undertaken to investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib (Prexige), a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor, in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand. METHODS: The study randomized 594 patients aged > or = 18 years with symptomatic OA of the hand. Patients underwent a 3 to 7-day washout for previous nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and those with pain intensity > or = 40 mm on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in the target hand during the 24 hours prior to baseline and an increase in pain intensity of either > or = 20% or > or = 10 mm VAS since screening (whichever was greater) were randomized to lumiracoxib 200 mg once daily (od) (n=205), lumiracoxib 400 mg od (n=193) or placebo (n=196). The primary efficacy variable was overall OA pain intensity (VAS mm) in the target hand after 4 weeks of treatment. Safety and tolerability assessments were performed. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of treatment, overall OA pain intensity in the target hand was significantly lower for patients treated with lumiracoxib compared with patients treated with placebo (both doses p<0.001). There was no significant difference between lumiracoxib doses in terms of the reduction in overall OA pain intensity. Lumiracoxib was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar for active treatment groups and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Lumiracoxib 200 and 400 mg od were effective and well tolerated treatments for OA of the hand. Lumiracoxib significantly improved overall OA pain intensity in the target hand versus placebo, with a tolerability profile similar to placebo.     

High response rate in the phase I/II study of meloxicam in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE: Use of meloxicam as a selective COX-2 inhibitor for treatment of adult rheumatic diseases decreases the frequency of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects in comparison with nonselective COX inhibitors. Up to 50% of children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) also develop GI side effects through nonselective COX inhibitors. In this 12 week Phase I/II study, with an additional open extension lasting up to 52 weeks, the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in JRA were investigated. METHODS: Meloxicam suspension 0.25 mg/kg once daily was given to 36 patients with JRA who required a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug. Safety evaluation and periodic measurement of efficacy were carried out using the Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO) criteria. Eighteen patients underwent pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluation. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients completed the study. Four were dropped due to administrative reasons. One patient, who found the drug ineffective, discontinued participation. A response was seen according to PRINTO outcome criteria in 44% of the patients at Week 4, 62% at Week 12, and 74% at Week 52. Drug related adverse events were observed in 5 patients. PK evaluation showed that the maximum plasma concentration Cmax of -34% and AUC(0-infinity) of -28% tended to be lower in younger children (2-6 years) versus older children. Plasma elimination half-life (13 h) was similar in all patients. CONCLUSION: Meloxicam suspension 0.25 mg/kg once daily seems to be effective and safe for treating active JRA over a period of 52 weeks.     

Ankylosing spondylitis: what is the optimum duration of a clinical study? A one year versus a 6 weeks non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug trial.

OBJECTIVE: To consider the relevance of the duration of a clinical trial in ankylosing spondylitis: long-term (i.e. 1 yr) vs short-term (i.e. 6 weeks) assessment of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-placebo controlled study. METHODS: The design was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 6 weeks duration with a 12 months double-blind extension. Study drugs were placebo (n = 121) or active NSAID (n = 352). A decrease of at least 50% in pain and/or global assessment and/or functional impairment during the study defined the response to treatment. The percentage of patients discontinuing the study drug over time (life table analysis) permitted the evaluation of both the efficacy and toxicity. RESULTS: Among the 473 recruited patients, the percentage of responders was similar at 1 yr and week 6 with a highly statistically significant difference in favour of the active NSAID groups when compared to placebo (at 1 yr, 17% in the placebo group vs 37, 50 and 43% in the piroxicam 20 mg, meloxicam 15 mg and meloxicam 22.5 mg, respectively, for the patient's overall assessment) without any statistically significant difference between the three active groups. However, evaluation of the patients discontinuing the study drug during the 1 yr of the study permitted the detection of a statistically significant difference between the active NSAID groups. A lower percentage of patients taking meloxicam 22.5 mg had to discontinue the study drug when compared to either meloxicam 15 mg or piroxicam 20 mg (37% vs 53% and 53%, respectively, P < 0.05). By 52 weeks, drug-related upper gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in 13, 32, 20 and 18% in the placebo, piroxicam 20 mg, meloxicam 15 mg and meloxicam 22.5 mg groups, respectively. Some of the adverse events occurred only after week 6. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a 1 yr trial might be of optimum value compared to a 6 week assessment in order to define better the efficacy and tolerability of NSAIDs in ankylosing spondylitis.     

Lack of efficacy of acetaminophen in treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled comparison trial with diclofenac sodium

BACKGROUND: Recommendations state that acetaminophen should be used in preference to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the initial treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee, because of lesser toxicity and the pervasive belief that acetaminophen is not only effective in treating OA pain but is of equal analgesic efficacy as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of diclofenac sodium, 75 mg twice daily, vs acetaminophen, 1000 mg 4 times daily, in 82 subjects with symptomatic OA of the medial knee. Osteoarthritis was quantitated radiographically, and subjects met stringent baseline pain criteria. The primary evaluation of efficacy used the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, with evaluations at screening, baseline, and 2 and 12 weeks after treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects were randomized to diclofenac, 29 to acetaminophen, and 28 to placebo. The groups were closely matched for age, sex, body mass index, prior use of OA medications, baseline pain, and radiographic features. At 2 and 12 weeks, clinically and statistically significant (P<.001) improvements were seen in the diclofenac-treated group; however, no significant improvements were seen in the acetaminophen-treated group (P =.92 at 2 weeks and.19 at 12 weeks). Stratification of subjects according to baseline pain, prestudy OA medication, and radiographic grade showed no clear pattern of preferential response to diclofenac, and did not reveal a subset of subjects who responded to acetaminophen. CONCLUSIONS: Diclofenac is effective in the symptomatic treatment of OA of the knee, but acetaminophen is not. A review of the literature reveals that there is scanty published evidence for a therapeutic effect of acetaminophen relative to placebo in patients with OA of the knee, because most published studies use active comparators (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) only. The advocacy of acetaminophen use in subjects with OA of the knee should be reconsidered pending further placebo-controlled studies.