Tanezumab Reduces Osteoarthritic Knee Pain: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of tanezumab versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This was a 32-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial (NCT00733902). The patient criteria included diagnosis of OA; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function subscale scores of ≥5 and ≥4, respectively; Patient's Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis (PGA) ≥3; and failure of nonopiate pain medications or candidacy for invasive interventions. Patients received 3 intravenous doses of tanezumab (2.5, 5, or 10 mg) or placebo. The co-primary efficacy end points were changes in WOMAC subscales and PGA at week 16. Adverse events were monitored throughout. Overall, 690 patients (61% female) were randomized and treated. Those treated with tanezumab showed significant improvement in the 3 co-primary end points (P ≤ .015 for all). The incidence of adverse events was 55 to 60% for tanezumab-treated patients versus 48% for placebo-treated patients. Joint replacement was reported in 4 patients, 1 in each treatment group; a total of 5 joints were replaced (1 index knee and 4 hips). The tanezumab OA clinical program is currently on clinical hold due to potential adverse reactions leading to joint replacement. PERSPECTIVE: This is the first phase III randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate that nerve growth factor blockade by tanezumab has superior analgesic efficacy in OA of the knee compared with placebo. Tanezumab was well tolerated, and reports of worsening OA and/or joint replacement were evenly distributed across the treatment groups.     

Efficacy of lumiracoxib in osteoarthritis: a review of nine studies

Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor in development for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain. We reviewed nine clinical studies of 1-52 weeks' duration demonstrating the efficacy of lumiracoxib in OA. Male and female patients aged > or = 18 years with primary OA of the hand, hip or knee received lumiracoxib, placebo or active comparators (diclofenac, celecoxib or rofecoxib). Lumiracoxib provided consistent reductions in OA pain intensity and improvements in the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status (assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire or the Australian/Canadian OA Hand Index). These results were superior to placebo and similar to the active comparators tested. In addition, lumiracoxib was consistently superior to placebo and generally similar to active comparators in terms of the new Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. These were used to provide a single measure of response to treatment, taking into account pain, the patient's global assessment of disease activity and functional status.     

Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of osteoarthritis flare pain: a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on study

BACKGROUND: In a flare of osteoarthritis (OA) pain, increasing the dose of standard anti-inflammatory or routine analgesic drugs may not be practical because of an increased incidence of side effects. In patients achieving inadequate pain relief from traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors, it may be appropriate to add an analgesic agent with a different mechanism of action, thereby targeting multiple components of the pain pathway. OBJECTIVE: The addition of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets to existing therapy was compared with the addition of placebo in the treatment of OA flare pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on study. Patients received 1 or 2 tramadol/acetaminophen (37.5 mg/325 mg) tablets QID or matching placebo for 10 days in addition to ongoing NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor therapy. The primary outcome measures were average daily pain intensity and average daily pain relief scores from days 1 through 5. RESULTS: Three hundred eight patients were randomized to tramadoUacetaminophen (n = 197) or placebo (n = 111) and were followed for up to 10 days. Patients had a mean (+/-SD) age of 60.1 +/- 9.87 years, and were predominantly female (71.8%) and white (87.7%). Their mean (+/- SD) pain visual analog score at baseline was 73.2 +/- 11.8 mm, and their mean pain intensity score was 2.4 +/- 0.5 (on a scale from 0 = none to 3 = severe). Average daily pain intensity and pain relief scores were significantly improved with tramadol/acetaminophen compared with placebo on the primary assessment of efficacy from days 1 through 5 (both, P < 0.001) and on the assessment of efficacy from days I through 10 (both, P < 0.001) Tramadol/acetaminophen was significantly superior to placebo on the patients' and physicians' overall assessments of medication (both, P < 0.001) and on 3 of 4 subscales (pain [P = 0.004], physical function [P = 0.013], and overall [P = 0.008]) of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with tramadol/acetaminophen were nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. No serious adverse events were reported in the tramadol/acetaminophen group. CONCLUSION: In this study, addition of tramadol/acetaminophen to NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor therapy was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of OA flare pain.     

Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a 13-week, randomized, double-blind comparison with celecoxib and placebo

BACKGROUND: Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor developed for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 100 mg QD compared with celecoxib and placebo in patients with OA of the knee. METHODS: In this 13-week, double-blind, double-dummy,placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients with primary OA of the knee and pain intensity in the target knee a 40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale after a 3- to 7-day washout of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with a loading dose of lumiracoxib 200 mg QD for the first 2 weeks, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo. Three primary efficacy variables were assessed at the end of the study: pain intensity in the target knee, the patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score). In addition, the treatment response was assessed using the Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT OARSI) criteria. The safety profile and tolerability of all treatments were also examined. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1551 patients (primarily white; 62% female; mean age, 60.5 years): 391 were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, 385 lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with a loading dose, 393 celecoxib 200 mg QD, and 382 placebo. Treatment groups were closely balanced at baseline with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. Lumiracoxib was superior to placebo (P < 0.001) and similar to celecoxib on all primary efficacy variables. Reductions in pain intensity in the target knee were similar in the 2 lumiracoxib groups at week 13 (estimated least square mean difference vs placebo: -6.7 and -8.1 mm for lumiracoxib 100 mg QD and lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with loading dose, respectively; both, P < 0.001); with celecoxib, the estimated least square mean difference was -5.7 mm (P < 0.001). Significant differences compared with placebo were seen in all variables starting at week 2 for all active treatments (all, P < 0.001). No significant differences were seen between the lumiracoxib groups at any time point. Based on OMERACT OARSI criteria, all active treatments were superior to placebo (all, P < 0.001). Lumiracoxib and celecoxib were well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events similar to that with placebo (64.7% lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, 67.0% lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with loading dose, 58.8% celecoxib, 58.4% placebo). CONCLUSION: In this population of patients with OA of the knee, lumiracoxib 100 mg QD was of similar efficacy to celecoxib 200 mg QD and had similar tolerability to placebo.     

Acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy to pharmacological treatment in patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: a 3-armed, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The efficacy of acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy to pharmacological treatment of chronic pain due to knee osteoarthritis was studied with a 3-armed, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial; it compared acupuncture combined with pharmacological treatment, sham acupuncture including pharmacological treatment, and pharmacological treatment alone. A total of 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly allocated to 3 groups: group I was treated with acupuncture and etoricoxib, group II with sham acupuncture and etoricoxib, and group III with etoricoxib. The primary efficacy variable was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index and its subscales at the end of treatment at week 8. Secondary efficacy variables included the WOMAC index at the end of weeks 4 and 12, a visual analogue scale (VAS) at the end of weeks 4, 8, and 12, and the Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2) health survey at the end of week 8. An algometer was used to determine changes in a predetermined unique fixed trigger point for every patient at the end of weeks 4, 8, and 12. Group I exhibited statistically significant improvements in primary and secondary outcome measures, except for Short Form mental component, compared with the other treatment groups. We conclude that acupuncture with etoricoxib is more effective than sham acupuncture with etoricoxib, or etoricoxib alone for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.     

Pain management in osteoarthritis: A focus on onset of efficacy—a comparison of rofecoxib, celecoxib, acetaminophen, and nabumetone across four clinical trials

We compared onset of efficacy (during days 1 to 6) of 2 coxibs (rofecoxib, celecoxib) with acetaminophen and nabumetone by using a prespecified approach to data from 4 similarly designed 6-week randomized osteoarthritis trials. In 2 trials, rofecoxib (12.5 mg and 25 mg once daily) was compared with celecoxib (200 mg once daily) and acetaminophen (4000 mg daily). In the other 2 trials, rofecoxib (12.5 mg) was compared with nabumetone (1000 mg once daily) and placebo. Efficacy end points included Patient Global Response to Therapy and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index scores. Rofecoxib (12.5- and 25-mg doses) consistently demonstrated a faster onset of osteoarthritis (OA) efficacy than the comparator drugs during the first 6 days of therapy of OA patients experiencing "flare." Acetaminophen resulted in the slowest onset of efficacy. There was a strong correlation (0.7) between efficacy response during days 1 to 6 and that averaged over 6 weeks. Rates of discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy were significantly lower (P < .02) for each of the coxib-treated groups compared with acetaminophen and for rofecoxib 12.5 mg (P = .01) compared with nabumetone. Rofecoxib treatment, with its faster onset of OA efficacy and lower rates of related discontinuations, might provide efficacy advantages in the treatment of OA pain. PERSPECTIVE: The efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, nabumetone, and acetaminophen is established for the majority of OA patients within the first 6 days of therapy, and this predicts efficacy during the longer term. Rofecoxib provides significantly faster time to onset of efficacy and better improvement on multiple measures versus the comparators.     

Treatment of chronic low back pain with etoricoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor: improvement in pain and disability--a randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-month trial.

We evaluated etoricoxib, a novel COX-2-specific inhibitor, in 319 patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to a 60 mg dose (n = 103) or 90 mg dose (n = 107) of etoricoxib, or placebo (n = 109), daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was low back pain intensity scale (Visual Analog Scale of 0- to 100-mm) time-weighted average change from baseline over 4 weeks. Other endpoints included evaluation over 3 months of low back pain intensity scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), low back pain bothersomeness scale, patient- and investigator-global assessments, Patient Health Survey (MOS SF-12), rescue acetaminophen use, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement from baseline versus placebo in pain intensity (4 weeks: 12.9 mm and 10.3 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P <.001 for each; 12 weeks: 10.5 mm and 7.5 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P =.001 and.018, respectively). Etoricoxib at either dose led to significant improvement in other endpoints, including RMDQ scores, bothersomeness scores and global assessments. Etoricoxib given once daily provided significant relief of symptoms, and disability associated with chronic LBP that was observed 1 week after initiating therapy, was maximal at 4 weeks, and was maintained over 3 months.     

Etoricoxib in acute pain associated with dental surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing acute pain after surgery, including dental surgery, often require analgesia. Ideally, the chosen analgesic should have a rapid onset and sustained effect. Etoricoxib is a new cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitor that has demonstrated analgesic efficacy in the treatment of acute pain with a rapid onset and long-lasting pain relief. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of single oral doses of etoricoxib 60, 120, 180, and 240 mg compared with placebo in the treatment of pain after dental surgery. Ibuprofen was used as an active control. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study performed at a single center. It consisted of 3 visits (prestudy, treatment, and poststudy). Eligible patients were aged > or =16 years with moderate or severe pain after surgical extraction of > or =2 third molars, of which > or =1 was an impacted mandibular molar. Patients were assessed over 24 hours and reported pain intensity and pain relied at 14 predefined time points. Plasma samples for a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis were collected from a subset of patients at baseline and the 14 predefined time points. The end points included total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8, the primary end point), sum of pain intensity difference over 8 hours, patient's global evaluation of treatment, median time to onset of pain relief (2-stopwatch method), peak pain relief, and duration of analgesic effect (median time to use of rescue medication). Adverse events were collected up to 14 days postdose. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-eight (63.1% women, 36.9% men; mean age, 21.1 years; 72.1% white, 27.9% other; mean number of third molars removed, 3.5; 65.2% experiencing moderate pain) were randomly allocated to receive etoricoxib 60 mg (n = 75), etoricoxib 120 mg (n = 76), etoricoxib 180 mg (n = 74), etoricoxib 240 mg (n = 76), ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 48), and placebo (n = 49). All active treatments had significantly greater overall analgesic effect (TOPAR8) compared with placebo (P < or 0.001). Patients who received etoricoxib 120 and 180 mg had significantly higher TOPAR8 scores than those who received etoricoxib 60 mg ( P < = 0.001) and ibuprofen (P < 0.05 etoricoxib 120 mg; P < or = 0.001 etoricoxib 180 mg). Least-squares mean TOPAR8 scores for etoricoxib 60, 120, 180, and 240 mg, ibuprofen, and placebo were 16.0, 22.0, 23.5, 20.7, 18.6, and 5.2, respectively. The median time to onset of analgesia was 24 minutes for etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg, and 30 minutes for etoricoxib 60 mg and ibuprofen. There were no significant differences in the onset of analgesia between etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg and ibuprofen. The duration of analgesic effect was >24 hours for etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg, and 12.1 hours for etoricoxib 60 mg. The duration of effect was significantly longer with all 4 etoricoxib doses compared with ibuprofen (10.1 hours; P < 0.05 etoricoxib 60 mg; < or = 0.001etoricoxib 120, 180, and 240 mg) and compared with placebo (2.1 hours; P < = 0.001). In the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis (n approximately 120), there was a linear relationship between plasma etoricoxib concentrations and pain relief scores up to the maximum observed concentration, followed by a decline in plasma concentrations with persistent analgesia. The most common adverse events were postextraction alveolitis and nausea. Conclusions: In this dose-ranging study, etoricoxib 120 mg was determined to be the minimum dose that had maximal efficacy in patients with moderate to severe acute pain associated with dental surgery. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy and safety of extended-release, once-daily tramadol in chronic pain: a randomized 12-week clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee

The efficacy and safety of a once-daily extended-release formulation of tramadol hydrochloride (tramadol ER) was evaluated in patients with moderate to severe chronic pain of osteoarthritis (OA). This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week study. Eligible patients with radiographically confirmed OA of the knee meeting the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria, defined by knee pain and presence of osteophytes, plus at least age >50 years, morning stiffness <30 minutes in duration, and/or crepitus, entered a 2-7 day washout period during which all analgesics were discontinued. When pain at the index knee joint reached > or =40 mm (0-100 mm VAS), patients were randomized to tramadol ER or placebo. Tramadol ER was initiated at 100 mg QD and increased to 200 mg QD by the end of 1 week of treatment. After the first week, further increases to tramadol ER 300 mg or 400 mg QD were allowed. Outcome measures included Arthritis Pain Intensity Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Scale (WOMAC) Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function VAS subscales, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Therapy, Sleep, dropouts due to insufficient therapeutic effect, and adverse events. Two hundred forty-six patients were randomized (tramadol ER 124, placebo 122). There were no baseline differences between the two treatments. The mean age was 61 years, mean duration of OA 12.9 years, and the mean tramadol ER dose was 276 mg QD. All efficacy outcome measures favored tramadol ER over placebo. On the primary outcome variable of average change from baseline in Arthritis Pain Intensity VAS over 12 weeks, tramadol ER was superior to placebo (least squares mean change from baseline: 30.4 mm vs. 17.7 mm, P < 0.001). Significant differences from placebo were evident at week 1, the first post-treatment visit. Similarly, outcomes on the WOMAC Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function subscales, the WOMAC Composite Scale, dropouts due to insufficient therapeutic effect, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Therapy, and Sleep were all significantly better with tramadol ER than placebo (P < 0.001 to < 0.05). Treatment with tramadol ER results in statistically significant and clinically important and sustained improvements in pain, stiffness, physical function, global status, and sleep in patients with chronic pain. A once-a-day formulation of tramadol has the potential to provide patients increased control over the management of their pain, fewer interruptions in sleep and improved compliance.     

Comparison of once-daily and twice-daily administration of celecoxib for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a celecoxib 200 mg QD regimen with a 100 mg BID regimen in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib 100 mg BID, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo for 6 weeks. Assessments of OA severity (Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments of Arthritis, Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain-Visual Analog Scale, Lequesne Osteoarthritis Severity Index, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) were performed at baseline and at week 2 and/or 6. Patients who discontinued treatment underwent assessments at the time of withdrawal from the study. RESULTS: Of the 718 patients enrolled, 243 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, 231 received celecoxib 200 mg QD, and 244 received placebo. For all measures of efficacy, at all assessments, improvements from baseline in both celecoxib groups were superior to that seen in the placebo group (P < 0.05). No significant differences in efficacy between the celecoxib groups were observed. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the 2 celecoxib treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dosing regimens of celecoxib 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID are equally effective and well tolerated in patients with OA of the knee. The availability of 2 effective regimens provides patients and physicians with increased flexibility in the selection of an appropriate dosing regimen for celecoxib therapy.     

Arnica montana gel in osteoarthritis of the knee: an open,multicenter clinical trial

This open multicenter trial investigated the safety and efficacy of anArnica montana fresh plant gel, applied twice daily, in 26 men and 53 women with mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. After 3 and 6 weeks, significant decreases in median total scores on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were evident in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations (both P<.0001). Scores on the pain, stiffness, and function subscales also showed significant reductions at these timepoints. The overall local adverse-event rate of 7.6% included only one allergic reaction. Sixty-nine patients (87%) rated the tolerability of the gel as “good” or “fairly good,” and 76% would use it again. Topical application ofArnica montana gel for 6 weeks was a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment of mild to moderate OA of the knee.     

Effects of footwear on medial compartment knee osteoarthritis

This pilot study investigated whether lateral-wedge insoles inserted into shock-absorbing walking shoes altered joint pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). Twenty-eight subjects wore full-length lateral-wedge insoles with an incline of 4 degrees in their walking shoes for 4 weeks. Pain, stiffness, and functional status were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index at baseline and 4 weeks postintervention. Significant improvements were observed in all three WOMAC subscales (pain, stiffness, and function). Pain scores were significantly reduced for the most challenging activity-stair climbing. Subjects wore insoles daily and tolerated them well. The results of this study indicated that lateral-wedge insoles inserted into shock-absorbing walking shoes are an effective treatment for medial compartment knee OA.     

Intra-Articular Injection of a Novel DVS Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid Manufactured by Biological Fermentation (YYD302) in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind,Randomized, Multicenter,Noninferiority Study

PurposeThis double-blind, randomized, Phase III clinical trial was conducted to assess the efficacy andsafety of the novel divinyl sulfone cross-linked hyaluronate (YYD302) compared with the 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether cross-linked hyaluronate (Synovian) in patients with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsA total of 184 patients with osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade I–III) were randomized to 1 of 2 study groups (YYD302 group, n = 95; Synovian group, n = 89). A single injection of YYD302 or Synovian was given to both groups, and 182 participants completed the study (YYD302 group, n = 95; Synovian group, n = 87). The primary end point was the change in weight-bearing pain (WBP) at 12 weeks after the primary single injection. Secondary end points included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score; the Patient Global Assessment and Investigator Global Assessment; the range of motion, swelling, and tenderness of the target knee; OMERACT-OARSI responder rate; WBP responder rate (the proportion of patients achieving at least 20 mm or 40% decrease in WBP); and rate of rescue medicine use and its total consumption at weeks 2, 4, and 12. Based on the efficacy results at week 12, the responders were administered an additional single injection of the same study drug at week 24, and safety and efficacy were additionally assessed at week 36.FindingsMean changes of WBP at 12 weeks after the primary injection were –31.76 mm with YYD302 and –29.74 mm with Synovian, proving noninferiority of the YYD302 group to the Synovian group as the lower bound of the 95% CI (–4.3 to 8.3) was well above the predefined margin (–10 mm). At week 2, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (total, pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (total, stiffness) were significantly better in the YYD302 group than in the Synovian group. There were no significant differences between the groups in all other end points. Local overall adverse events (pain, heat, erythema, or swelling) at the injection site were observed in 48.4% of the YYD302 group and in 47.7% of the Synovian group. No serious reactions were reported. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding re-injected patients (YYD302 group, n = 54; Synovian group, n = 46) in any of the efficacy outcomes at week 36.ImplicationsThe results of this study support that YYD302 is comparable to Synovian in terms of the efficacy and safety of the intra-articular injection treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Furthermore, YYD302 provided faster improvements in some efficacy assessments compared with Synovian. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03561779.     

Results of a Double‐blind,Placebo‐controlled,Fixed‐dose Assessment of Once‐daily OROS® Hydromorphone ER in Patients with Moderate to Severe Pain Associated with Chronic Osteoarthritis

Objective: Opioids are recommended for patients with moderate to severe pain due to osteoarthritis (OA), who do not receive adequate analgesia from nonopioid treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OROS hydromorphone extended‐release (ER) compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with OA. Methods: This was a randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, fixed‐dose study. Patients received placebo or fixed‐dose OROS hydromorphone ER (8 or 16 mg). The primary efficacy measure was pain intensity score (11‐point Numeric Rating Scale) at Maintenance Week 12, analyzed with baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) imputation for missing data. Results: This study did not meet the primary efficacy measure using the BOCF imputation. Study discontinuation was high (52%). When analyzed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation, the prespecified alternate method, OROS hydromorphone ER 16 mg provided significantly better analgesia than placebo (P = 0.0009). Treatment was associated with significant improvements in patient global assessment (P = 0.01), the overall Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (P = 0.0003), and its subscales: pain (P = 0.0001), stiffness (P = 0.0023), and physical function (P = 0.0006). Gastrointestinal adverse events, such as constipation and nausea, were common among patients receiving OROS hydromorphone ER. Conclusions: OROS hydromorphone ER failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint using the prespecified imputation method (BOCF), likely due to the high discontinuation rate associated with the fixed‐dose design. When data were analyzed according to an alternate method of imputation (LOCF), OROS hydromorphone ER demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pain, stiffness, and physical function.     

Efficacy and safety of flavocoxid, a novel therapeutic, compared with naproxen: a randomized multicenter controlled trial in subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee

Introduction

Flavocoxid is a novel flavonoid-based “dual inhibitor” of the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) enzyme and the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of flavocoxid to naproxen in subjects with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

Methods

In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, 220 subjects were assigned to receive either flavocoxid (500 mg twice daily) or naproxen (500 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. The trial was structured to show noninferiority of flavocoxid to naproxen. Primary outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and subscales and a timed walk.

Results

More than 90% of the subjects in both groups noted significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of knee OA. There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between the flavocoxid and naproxen groups when the entire intent-to-treat population was analyzed. The flavocoxid group had significantly fewer upper gastrointestinal (UGI) and renal (edema) adverse events (AEs) as well as a strong trend toward fewer respiratory AEs.

Conclusion

Flavocoxid, a first-in-class flavonoid-based therapeutic that inhibits COX-1 and COX-2 as well as 5-LOX, was as effective as naproxen in managing the signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. Flavocoxid demonstrated better UGI, renal (edema), and respiratory safety profiles than naproxen.     

A 2-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, phase III trial comparing the efficacy of oxymorphone extended release and placebo in adults with pain associated with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND: Oxymorphone extended release (ER) is a tablet formulation of the mu-opioid agonist oxymorphone designed to achieve a low peak-to-trough fluctuation in plasma concentrations over a 12-hour dosing period. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the analgesic efficacy, dose response, and tolerability of 3 doses of oxymorphone ER given every 12 hours with those of placebo in patients with pain related to osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. METHODS: This was a 2-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, Phase III trial. Patients with OA of the hip or knee who were receiving an opioid medication for chronic, moderate to severe pain or who were judged by the investigator to have received suboptimal analgesia with nonopioid analgesics entered a 2- to 7-day washout of analgesic medication. When pain in the index joint was >40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), patients were randomized to receive 1 of 4 regimens: oxymorphone ER 10 mg q12h during weeks 1 and 2; oxymorphone ER 20 mg q12h in week 1 and 40 mg q12h in week 2; oxymorphone ER 20 mg q12h in week 1 and 50 mg q12h in week 2; or placebo q12h during weeks 1 and 2. The primary end point was the change in VAS score for arthritis pain intensity. Other assessments included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index subscales for pain, stiffness, and physical function and the composite index; the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical health component summary (PCS) score; the Chronic Pain Sleep Inventory (CPSI) score; vital signs; clinical laboratory parameters; and adverse events (AEs). AEs were recorded at each clinic visit. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy patients were randomized to treatment (95 oxymorphone ER 10 mg, 93 oxymorphone ER 40 mg, 91 oxymorphone ER 50 mg, and 91 placebo), and 198 completed the study. Least squares mean changes from baseline in the VAS arthritis pain intensity score were -21, -28, -29, and -17 mm in the oxymorphone ER 10, 40, and 50 mg and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.002, modified Tukey linear trend test). Oxymorphone ER 40 and 50 mg produced significant improvements from baseline compared with placebo in the WOMAC subscale scores for pain (least squares mean change: -85.1, -108.0, and -42.5, respectively; P < or = 0.025 for 40 mg, P < or = 0.001 for 50 mg), stiffness (-40.5, -48.1, and -17.0; both, P < or = 0.001), and physical function (-256.8, -310.8, and -116.5; P < or = 0.01 and P < or = 0.001, respectively); the SF-36 PCS score (4.6, 3.6, and -0.1; P < 0.001); and the CPSI score (-21.2, -22.2, and -10.7; P < 0.05). The 10-mg dose also was associated with significant improvements compared with placebo in the WOMAC pain (-83.6; P < or = 0.025) and physical function subscales (-232.9; P < or = 0.025) and the SF-36 PCS score (3.9; P < 0.001). The most frequently reported AEs (> or =5% of patients) in the oxymorphone ER groups were nausea (39.4%), vomiting (23.7%), dizziness (22.6%), constipation (22.2%), somnolence (17.6%), pruritus (16.5%), and headache (15.0%). The majority of AEs with oxymorphone ER were mild or moderate in intensity. Three serious AEs (urinary retention, central nervous system depression, and pancreatitis) were considered possibly or probably related to study medication. CONCLUSION: In these patients with chronic, moderate to severe pain related to OA of the hip or knee, oxymorphone ER administered twice daily for 2 weeks produced dose-related reductions in arthritis pain intensity and improvements in physical function.     

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing the analgesic effect of etoricoxib to placebo, naproxen sodium, and acetaminophen with codeine using the dental impaction pain model

OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall analgesic effect, including time to onset, peak and duration of effect for etoricoxib 120 mg, a new COX-2 selective inhibitor, in patients with acute pain to that of placebo. Naproxen sodium 550 mg and acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg were the active comparators. METHODS: A total of 201 patients with moderate to severe pain following surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars, of which at least the mandibular tooth was impacted, were randomly allocated to receive single oral doses of placebo (n = 50), etoricoxib 120 mg (n = 50), naproxen sodium 550 mg (n = 51), or acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg (n = 50). The endpoints included total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8, primary end point), sum of pain intensity difference over 8 hours, patient's global evaluation, onset, peak, and duration of analgesia. RESULTS: Etoricoxib 120 mg had a significantly greater least squares (LS) mean TOPAR8 score than placebo (20.9 vs 5.4; P < 0.001) and acetaminophen/codeine 600/60 mg (20.9 vs 11.5; P < 0.001), and a similar LS mean TOPAR8 score to naproxen sodium 550 mg (20.9 vs 21.3). All three active treatments had rapid onset of analgesia, median time approximately 30 minutes. The duration of analgesic effect, defined as median time to rescue medication use, was >24 hours for etoricoxib, 20.8 hours for naproxen sodium, 3.6 hours for acetaminophen/codeine, and 1.6 hours for placebo. DISCUSSION: Etoricoxib is a new COX-2 selective inhibitor under development for treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain. In this study, etoricoxib 120 mg provided rapid and long-lasting pain relief to patients with moderate-to-severe postdental surgery pain. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated.     

Treatment of persistent pain associated with osteoarthritis with controlled-release oxycodone tablets in a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: This study, lasting up to 90 days, was undertaken in patients with osteoarthritis with persistent moderate to severe pain uncontrolled by standard therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and/or short-acting opioids) to evaluate functional outcomes, as well as efficacy and safety, of controlled-release oxycodone versus placebo. METHODS: One hundred seven patients received either controlled-release oxycodone or placebo every 12 hours in this double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Stable previous regimens of acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents were allowed to continue. Primary efficacy variables included Brief Pain Inventory average pain intensity scores at completion of initial titration, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores at days 30 and 60, and the percentage of patients discontinuing due to inadequate pain control. RESULTS: Controlled-release oxycodone was significantly superior to placebo in decreasing average pain intensity and in reducing pain-induced interference with general activity, walking ability (except at day 30), and normal work, as well as mood, sleep, relations with people (at days 60 and 90), and enjoyment in life. Daily functioning, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, was also significantly improved in the controlled-release oxycodone group. In the placebo group, a significantly greater percentage of patients discontinued due to inadequate pain control. Adverse events were consistent with opioid adverse events, and no safety concerns were noted. DISCUSSION: Treatment with controlled-release oxycodone of patients with osteoarthritis with persistent moderate to severe pain uncontrolled by standard therapy resulted in significant pain control and improvements in physical functioning.     

Phase I design and evaluation of an isometric muscle reeducation device for knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation

Our long-term goal is to improve adherence to a home-based isometric program for rehabilitation of knee osteoarthritis (OA) using a force-biofeedback device (Isopad). Our goal for Phase I was to design and evaluate an Isopad-based program in a supervised clinical setting. Our subjects were five patients with knee OA of Kellgren stage II or greater. A capacitive force sensor was tested for accuracy, repeatability, and durability. An Arthritis Foundation home-based isometric program inspired the Isopad design. The Isopad provided visual and auditory feedback instantaneously and continuously about force generated between the ankles. The five subjects completed a supervised 8-week progressive isometric program using the Isopad. Absolute isolated quadriceps and hamstring torques were quantified with a dynamometer, and patients completed a self-assessment of symptoms (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index). The capacitive sensor accuracy error averaged 10% and repeatability 4%. Cognitively intact subjects used the Isopad successfully for isometric progressive resistance training. Quadriceps and hamstrings absolute torques increased an average of 30%. Patients reported decreased functional complaints (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index). All changes were trends. The Isopad helped subjects with knee OA adhere to a supervised isometric program and meet progressive strength targets. The next-generation Isopad will be employed in a home-based program.     

A phase III placebo- and oxycodone-controlled study of tanezumab in adults with osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee

Tanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antinerve growth factor antibody in development for treatment of chronic pain. In a phase III, placebo- and active-controlled study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of tanezumab for osteoarthritis (OA) hip or knee pain. Patients (N = 610) received up to 2 doses of intravenous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg in 8-week intervals), controlled-release oral oxycodone (10 to 40 mg every 12 hours), or placebo. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain score for tanezumab versus placebo and oxycodone. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in WOMAC Physical Function and Stiffness scores, Patient’s Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and patient response, defined as ?30%, ?50%, ?70%, and ?90% improvement from baseline in WOMAC Pain score. Tolerability and safety also were assessed. Both tanezumab groups demonstrated significant improvements in WOMAC Pain score versus placebo (P < .001) and oxycodone (P ? .018). Tanezumab also provided significant improvements versus placebo and oxycodone for WOMAC Physical Function and Stiffness scores and PGA of OA (P ? .002 for all) at week 8. For all analyses, oxycodone did not differ from placebo. Adverse event frequency was higher with oxycodone (63.3%) than tanezumab (40.7% to 44.7%) or placebo (35.5%); serious adverse event frequency was similar among treatments. The adverse event profile for tanezumab was similar to previous tanezumab studies. Results indicate that tanezumab is efficacious in the treatment of OA pain; no new safety signals were identified.