Efficacy and safety of valdecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Valdecoxib improves lipid-induced skeletal muscle insulin resistance via simultaneous suppression of inflammation and endoplasmic reticulum stress

Valdecoxib (VAL), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, has been widely used for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and menstrual pain. It is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor. The suppressive effects of VAL on cardiovascular diseases and neuroinflammation have been documented; however, its impact on insulin signaling in skeletal muscle has not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of VAL on insulin resistance in mouse skeletal muscle. Treatment of C2C12 myocytes with VAL reversed palmitate-induced aggravation of insulin signaling and glucose uptake. Further, VAL attenuated palmitate-induced inflammation and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress in a concentration-dependent manner. Treatment with VAL concentration-dependently upregulated AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and heat shock protein beta 1 (HSPB1) expression. In line with in vitro experiments, treatment with VAL augmented AMPK phosphorylation and HSPB1 expression, thereby alleviating high-fat diet-induced insulin resistance along with inflammation and ER stress in mouse skeletal muscle. However, small interfering RNA-mediated inhibition of AMPK abolished the effects of VAL on insulin resistance, inflammation, and ER stress. These results suggest that VAL alleviates insulin resistance through AMPK/HSPB1-mediated inhibition of inflammation and ER stress in skeletal muscle under hyperlipidemic conditions. Hence, VAL could be used as an effective pharmacotherapeutic agent for management of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

Virtual controls as an alternative to randomized controlled trials for assessing efficacy of interventions

Randomized controlled trials are ubiquitously spoken of as the "gold standard" for testing interventions and establishing causal relations. This article presents evidence for two premises. First: there are often major problems with randomized designs; it is by no means true that the only good design is a randomized design. Second: the method of virtual controls in some circumstances can and should replace randomized designs.Randomized trials can present problems with external validity or generalizability; they can be unethical; they typically involve much time, effort, and expense; their assignments to treatment conditions often can be maintained only for limited time periods; examination of their track record reveals problems with reproducibility on the one hand, and lack of overwhelming superiority to observational methods on the other hand.The method of virtual controls involves ongoing efforts to refine statistical models for prediction of outcomes from measurable variables, under conditions of no treatment or current standard of care. Research participants then join a single-arm study of a new intervention. Each participant's data, together with the formulas previously generated, predict that participant's outcome without the new intervention. These outcomes are the "virtual controls." The actual outcomes with intervention are compared with the virtual control outcomes to estimate effect sizes. Part of the research product is the prediction equations themselves, so that in clinical practice, individual treatment decisions may be aided by quantitative answers to the questions, "What is estimated to happen to this particular patient with and without this treatment?"The method of virtual controls is especially indicated when rapid results are of high priority, when withholding intervention is likely harmful, when adequate data exist for prediction of untreated or standard of care outcomes, when we want to let people choose the treatment they prefer, when tailoring treatment decisions to individuals is desirable, and when real-world clinical information can be harnessed for analysis.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular, renal or gastrointestinal comorbidities: joint APAGE/APLAR/APSDE/APSH/APSN/PoA recommendations

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications, but they are associated with a number of serious adverse effects, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney injury and GI complications.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of multidisciplinary recommendations for the safe prescription of NSAIDs.

METHODS

Randomised control trials and observational studies published before January 2018 were reviewed, with 329 papers included for the synthesis of evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Whenever possible, a NSAID should be avoided in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, high risk of cardiovascular disease and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Before treatment with a NSAID is started, blood pressure should be measured, unrecognised CKD should be screened in high risk cases, and unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia should be investigated. For patients with high cardiovascular risk, and if NSAID treatment cannot be avoided, naproxen or celecoxib are preferred. For patients with a moderate risk of peptic ulcer disease, monotherapy with a non-selective NSAID plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), or a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor should be used; for those with a high risk of peptic ulcer disease, a selective COX-2 inhibitor plus PPI are needed. For patients with pre-existing hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system blockers, empirical addition (or increase in the dose) of an antihypertensive agent of a different class should be considered. Blood pressure and renal function should be monitored in most cases.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs are a valuable armamentarium in clinical medicine, but appropriate recognition of high-risk cases, selection of a specific agent, choice of ulcer prophylaxis and monitoring after therapy are necessary to minimise the risk of adverse events.

CP-25 reverses prostaglandin E4 receptor desensitization-induced fibroblast-like synoviocyte dysfunction via the G protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 in autoimmune arthritis

Paeoniflorin-6'-O-benzene sulfonate (CP-25) is a novel compound derived from paeoniflorin that has been demonstrated to have therapeutic effects in a rat model of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, the underlying mechanism has not been elucidated to date. We explored this mechanism in the present study by treating rats with adjuvant arthritis (AA) with CP-25. We found that the membrane EP4 protein level was downregulated; whereas, GRK2 was upregulated, in fibroblast-like synoviocyte (FLS)s of AA rats. Prostaglandin (PGE)2 stimulated FLS proliferation and enhanced the membrane EP4 receptor protein level; the latter was reversed by the administration of an EP4 receptor agonist, whereas the membrane GRK2 protein level gradually increased. The changes in the EP4 receptor and GRK2 expression were enhanced by TNF-α, and the former was accompanied by an alteration in the cyclic (c)AMP level. The EP4 receptor agonist stimulation increased the association between GRK2 and the EP4 receptor. GRK2 knockdown abrogated the abnormalities in FLS proliferation. The CP-25 treatment (100 mg/kg) suppressed joint inflammation with an efficacy that was similar to that of methotrexate. This finding was associated with EP4 upregulation and GRK2 downregulation in FLSs. Thus, GRK2 plays an important role in the abnormal FLS proliferation observed in AA possibly by promoting EP4 receptor desensitization and decreasing the cAMP level. Our results demonstrate that CP-25 has therapeutic potential for the treatment of human RA via GRK2 regulation.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug related upper gastrointestinal bleeding: types of drug use and patient profiles in real clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The best available evidence regarding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding comes from randomized controlled trials including patients who use NSAIDs to manage chronic rheumatic diseases; however, patients with varying background profiles commonly take NSAIDs for many other reasons, often without prescription, and such usage has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

To define the characteristics of patients hospitalized for upper GI bleeding in clinical practice, we conducted a case-control study among patients with endoscopy-proven major upper GI bleeding due to gastroduodenal peptic lesions and control subjects. We used adjusted logistic regression models to estimate bleeding risks. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 3785 cases and 6540 controls, including 1270 cases (33.55%) and 834 controls (12.75%) reporting recent use (<30 days) of NSAIDs including high-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). NSAID use was associated with increased risk of upper GI bleeding, with an adjusted relative risk of 4.86 (95% CI, 4.32-5.46). Acute musculoskeletal pain (36.1%), chronic osteoarthritis (13.5%), and headache (13.6%) were the most common reasons for NSAID use. Among cases, only 17.31% took NSAIDs and 6.38% took high dose ASA due to chronic osteoarthritis. Demographic characteristics significantly differed between subjects with chronic vs. acute musculoskeletal pain. Proton pump inhibitor use was significantly higher in patients who used NSAIDs due to chronic osteoarthritis compared to patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. NSAID (65.15%) or high-dose ASA use (65.83%) preceding upper GI bleeding was most often short-term. In over half of cases (63.62%), the upper GI bleeding event was not preceded by dyspeptic warning symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients hospitalized due to NSAID-related upper GI bleeding reported short-term NSAID use for reasons other than chronic rheumatic disease. These findings suggest that current prevention strategies may not reach a wide population of short-term NSAID users.

Application of liposomes in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: quo vadis

The most common treatments for rheumatoid arthritis include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and some biological agents. However, none of the treatments available is able to achieve the ultimate goal of treatment, that is, drug-free remission. This limitation has shifted the focus of treatment to delivery strategies with an ability to deliver the drugs into the synovial cavity in the proper dosage while mitigating side effects to other tissues. A number of approaches like microemulsions, microspheres, liposomes, microballoons, cocrystals, nanoemulsions, dendrimers, microsponges, and so forth, have been used for intrasynovial delivery of these drugs. Amongst these, liposomes have proven to be very effective for retaining the drug in the synovial cavity by virtue of their size and chemical composition. The fast clearance of intra-synovially administered drugs can be overcome by use of liposomes leading to increased uptake of drugs by the target synovial cells, which in turn reduces the exposure of nontarget sites and eliminates most of the undesirable effects associated with therapy. This review focuses on the use of liposomes in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and summarizes data relating to the liposome formulations of various drugs. It also discusses emerging trends of this promising technology.

Endoscopic ulcers as a surrogate marker of NSAID-induced mucosal damage

The characteristic of a biomarker that makes it a useful surrogate is the ability to identify a high risk of clinically important benefits or harms occurring in the future. A number of definitions or descriptions of surrogate definition have been put forward. Most recently the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA has put forward an evaluation scheme for biomarkers, looking at validation (assay performance), qualification (assessment of evidence), and utilisation (the context in which the surrogate is to be used). This paper examines the example of endoscopy as a surrogate marker of NSAID-induced mucosal damage using the Institute of Medicine criteria. The article finds extensive evidence that the detection of endoscopic ulcers is a valid marker. The process of qualification documents abundant evidence showing that endoscopic ulcers and serious upper gastrointestinal damage are influenced in the same direction and much the same magnitude by a variety of risk factors and interventions. Criticisms of validation and qualification for endoscopic ulcers have been examined, and dismissed. Context is the key, and in the context of serious NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal harm, endoscopic ulcers represent a useful surrogate. Generalisability beyond this context is not considered.

Pain management for rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Pain in rheumatoid arthritis is common, is often multi-factorial and many different pharmacotherapeutic agents are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that some of the pain pharmacotherapies currently used may increase the risk of adverse events in people with rheumatoid arthritis and concurrent cardiovascular or renal disease.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess and collate the scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of using pain pharmacotherapy in people with rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4); MEDLINE, from 1950; EMBASE, from 1980; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We also handsearched the conference proceedings for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) for 2008-09, and checked the websites of regulatory agencies for reported adverse events, labels and warnings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing the efficacy and safety of pain pharmacotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with and without comorbid cardiovascular or renal conditions.In addition, we also considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort and case control studies and case series (N ≥ 20) to assess safety.For the purpose of our review, pain pharmacotherapy was defined as including simple analgesics (such as paracetamol), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids or opioid-like drugs (such as tramadol), and neuromodulators (including anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, and muscle relaxants).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results and planned to extract data and appraise the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Many of the trials of NSAIDs explicitly excluded patients with cardiovascular or renal comorbidities.We did identify one trial that reported evidence in mixed populations (including both rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis) taking either diclofenac or etoricoxib. In this study, the presence of cardiovascular disease increased the likelihood of a further cardiovascular event three-fold. Patients with two or more cardiovascular comorbidities showed a two-fold increased likelihood of adverse cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were no trials that specifically compared the efficacy and safety of pain pharmacotherapies for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with and without comorbid cardiovascular or renal conditions.In the absence of specific evidence in rheumatoid arthritis, current guidelines recommend that NSAIDs be used with caution in the general rheumatoid arthritis population while highlighting the added need for extra vigilance in patients with established cardiovascular disease or risk factors for its development. Current guidelines regarding the use of NSAIDs and opioids in moderate to severe renal impairment should also be applied to the rheumatoid arthritis population.Further research is required to guide clinicians when treating pain in rheumatoid arthritis.

Efficacy and Safety of COX-2 Inhibitors in the Clinical Management of Arthritis: Mini Review

In the clinical management of arthritis, the choice of nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drug (NSAID) remains confusing and controversial. A common practice on the choice of NSAID in clinical management of arthritis is the risk benefit ratio. The main objective of this review is to addresses the main arguments for the pharmacological and clinical use of COX-2 inhibitors in relation to nonselective NSAIDs for the clinical management of arthritis. This review concluded that, both NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors are equally effective and are associated with increased risk of GI, renal, and CV, adverse effects. Complete understanding of the patient's comorbid conditions and concomitant medications, coupled with precise monitoring during the treatment, may help to decrease the threat of adverse effects induced by nonselective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors.

Cardiovascular and gastrointestinal safety of NSAIDs: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials

As part of the Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (SOS) Project, we reviewed the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) and gastrointestinal (GI) events associated with the use of this category of drugs. We collected data from published meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The Medline, Cochrane, ISI, and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched for MAs of NSAID clinical trials that could potentially contain data on adverse incidents such as myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CeVs), stroke, thromboembolic events (ThEs), heart failure (HF), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and perforation, ulcer, and bleeding (PUB). From 1,733 identified references, 29 MAs were selected for the review. This allowed 109 estimations of incidence rates of CV adverse events and 26 estimations of incidence rates for GI adverse events. No data were found on hemorrhagic stroke or LGIB. Coxibs were studied in more MAs than traditional NSAIDs were (21 MAs for coxibs vs. 7 for traditional NSAIDs; one meta-analysis studied both). Many NSAIDs were not considered in any of the MAs. Our systematic review of MAs included information on the incidence of CV and GI events and identified important knowledge gaps regarding, in particular, the CV safety of traditional NSAIDs.

Analysis of individual patient data from clinical trials: epidural morphine for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Individual patient information from clinical trials is infrequently available, but can provide insights for clinical trials and practice.

METHODS

We analysed individual patient information from five randomized trials (913 patients) of i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) plus epidural placebo, morphine sulphate (MS) 5 mg, or extended-release epidural morphine (EREM; DepoDur) at doses of 5-30 mg, to explore effects of a range of epidural morphine doses. Pain and opioid requirement on first and second postoperative days, dose-response, clinically relevant comparisons of IVPCA without epidural morphine, 5 mg MS, and 10 mg EREM, and relationship between patient rating and other measures were described.

RESULTS

There were three strong findings. Epidural morphine resulted in greater patient satisfaction, despite higher rates of adverse events. Those describing their analgesic medication as 'very good' or 'excellent' used IVPCA opioid less and had pain scores significantly below the global mean, whereas those describing their medication as 'poor' or 'fair' had pain scores significantly above the mean. Epidural morphine meant less need for postoperative IVPCA opioid than epidural placebo. The therapeutic gain with EREM was lower pain scores with less IVPCA opioid. Moderate or severe pruritus was more common with IVPCA plus epidural morphine, whatever the formulation, compared with IVPCA plus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of individual patient data from high-quality clinical trials provides important insights into characteristics of new agents not immediately apparent from original trials, and also informing clinical practice. Prophylactic epidural morphine provides a better patient experience than IVPCA alone.

Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is a recently developed antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of pregabalin in acute and chronic pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to May 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers and on-line clinical trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double blind trials reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the patient as either the primary or a secondary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no clear evidence of beneficial effects of pregabalin in established acute postoperative pain. No studies evaluated pregabalin in chronic nociceptive pain, like arthritis.Pregabalin at doses of 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily was effective in patients with postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (19 studies, 7003 participants). Pregabalin at 150 mg daily was generally ineffective. Efficacy was demonstrated for dichotomous outcomes equating to moderate or substantial pain relief, alongside lower rates for lack of efficacy discontinuations with increasing dose. The best (lowest) NNT for each condition for at least 50% pain relief over baseline (substantial benefit) for 600 mg pregabalin daily compared with placebo were 3.9 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.1) for postherpetic neuralgia, 5.0 (4.0 to 6.6) for painful diabetic neuropathy, 5.6 (3.5 to 14) for central neuropathic pain, and 11 (7.1 to 21) for fibromyalgia.With 600 mg pregabalin daily somnolence typically occurred in 15% to 25% and dizziness occurred in 27% to 46%. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 18 to 28%. The proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse event was not affected by dose, nor was the number with a serious adverse event, which was not more than with placebo.Higher rates of substantial benefit were found in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy than in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. For moderate and substantial benefit on any outcome NNTs for the former were generally six and below for 300 mg and 600 mg daily; for fibromyalgia NNTs were much higher, and generally seven and above.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin has proven efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions and fibromyalgia. A minority of patients will have substantial benefit with pregabalin, and more will have moderate benefit. Many will have no or trivial benefit, or will discontinue because of adverse events. Individualisation of treatment is needed to maximise pain relief and minimise adverse events. There is no evidence to support the use of pregabalin in acute pain scenarios.

Management of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: focus on proton pump inhibitors

The association between NSAIDs and the presence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications is well established. Evidence that acid aggravates NSAID-induced injury provides a rationale for minimizing such damage by acid suppression. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) appear to be very effective in treating NSAID-related dyspepsia, and also in healing gastric and duodenal ulcers in patients continuing to receive the NSAID. An analysis of data from comparative studies of PPIs versus ranitidine, misoprostol and sucralfate shows a therapeutic advantage in favour of the PPI. Several studies now confirm the efficacy of co-therapy with PPIs in the short- and long-term prevention of NSAID-induced upper GI injury. PPIs are more effective than histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists at standard dosages in reducing the risk of gastric and duodenal ulcer, and are superior to misoprostol in preventing duodenal but not gastric lesions. However, when balancing effectiveness and tolerance, PPIs may be considered the treatment of choice in the short- and long-term prevention of NSAID-related mucosal lesions. To date, there are only a few published articles dealing with the role of PPIs in the prevention of upper GI complications. Recent epidemiological and interventional studies provide some evidence that PPIs are of benefit. However, more controlled studies using clinical outcomes are needed to establish the best management strategy (PPIs combined with traditional NSAIDs or with cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors) especially in patients with multiple risk factors, in patients using concomitant low-dose aspirin, corticosteroids or anticoagulants (high risk group), or in patients with a history of ulcer complications (very high risk group). Furthermore, it should be underlined that Helicobacter pylori infection positively interacts with the gastroprotective effect of PPIs; therefore, the true efficacy of these drugs in preventing NSAID-related ulcer complications should be reassessed without the confounding influence of this microorganism.

4 years after withdrawal of rofecoxib: where do we stand today?

On the 24th of October 2006, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) stated that "it cannot be excluded that non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) may be associated with a small increase in the absolute risk for thrombotic events". Reviewing the most recent literature including meta-analyses of randomized clinical studies and pharmacoepidemiological studies show that this statement contrasts with the 2005 EMEA evaluation of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, which contained a number of regulations including several contraindications for coxibs. Recent clinical data indicate that the entire substance group of NSAIDs may have cardiovascular side effects but to different degrees. Results of basic research support these observations showing that the increase for cardiovascular risk not only depends on the ratio of inhibition of thromboxan and prostacyclin but also on other mechanisms including blood pressure elevation and cyclooxygenase independent actions. In clinical practice, many patients require anti-inflammatory therapy with NSAIDs but are at high cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risk. The combination of nsNSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors shows comparable safety to coxibs in averting upper gastrointestinal events, but evidence is increasing coxibs have advantages regarding lower gastrointestinal side effects. Concomitant therapy with aspirin is another issue. There is a negative effect on gastrointestinal safety, as well as the influence of nsNSAIDs on the cardioprotective effect of aspirin. As the contraindications for coxibs announced by the EMEA may prevent some patients from receiving optimal treatment, a warning for the entire substance group, as issued by the American Food and Drug Administration, with no contraindictions, would certainly be more reasonable.

Discontinuation rates in clinical trials in musculoskeletal pain: meta-analysis from etoricoxib clinical trial reports

Introduction

Patient adherence to therapy in clinical practice is often low, and the difference between efficacy measured in clinical trials and effectiveness in clinical practice is probably a function of discontinuation of therapy because of lack of efficacy or because of unmanageable or intolerable adverse events. Discontinuation is frequently measured in clinical trials but is not usually described in detail in published reports, often because of limitations in the size of publications. By contrast, company clinical trial reports include much more detail.

Methods

We examined company clinical trial reports of trials involving etoricoxib in four musculoskeletal conditions: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic low back pain and ankylosing spondylitis. Information was available from 18 randomized trials (10,143 patients) lasting 4 to 12 weeks (one 4 weeks, three 6 weeks, one 8 weeks and seven 12 weeks) and from three trials with a mean duration of about 80 weeks (34,695 patients). These clinical trial reports contain over 73,000 pages of information.

Results

Over 12 weeks, lack of efficacy and adverse event discontinuations were similar between osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and back pain, with lack of efficacy discontinuation rates some three times higher than for adverse events. All-cause and lack of efficacy discontinuations were lower with etoricoxib (all doses combined) and traditional nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) than with placebo, although NSAIDs produced higher rates of clinical adverse events and gastrointestinal discontinuations than did placebo. Etoricoxib had fewer discontinuations than NSAIDs for lack of efficacy, clinical adverse events, and laboratory and gastrointestinal adverse events, but with more discontinuations because of hypertension and oedema. Comparison with two similar meta-analyses of other cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (more than 80,000 patients in total) revealed consistency between analyses.

Conclusion

Examining discontinuation data from clinical trials, even when the numbers of patients are very large, does not necessarily predict what will happen in the real world, where clinical effectiveness may differ from clinical efficacy assessed in trials. Data from these analyses appears to agree with findings from real world practice.

Long-term retention on treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg once or twice daily compared with celecoxib 200 mg once daily: a randomised controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib, a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, has been demonstrated in previous studies of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). As it is important to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of treatments for a chronic disease such as OA, the present study compared the effects of lumiracoxib at doses of 100 mg once daily (o.d.) and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with those of celecoxib 200 mg o.d. on retention on treatment over 1 year.

METHODS

In this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, male and female patients (aged at least 40 years) with symptomatic primary OA of the hip, knee, hand or spine were randomised (1:2:1) to lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. (n = 755), lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. (n = 1,519) or celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 758). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of lumiracoxib at either dose compared with celecoxib 200 mg o.d. with respect to the 1-year retention on treatment rate. Secondary outcome variables included OA pain in the target joint, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, Short Arthritis assessment Scale (SAS) total score, rescue medication use, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Retention rates at 1 year were similar for the lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. and celecoxib 200 mg o.d. groups (46.9% vs 47.5% vs 45.3%, respectively). It was demonstrated that retention on treatment with lumiracoxib at either dose was non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg o.d. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves for the probability of premature discontinuation from the study for any reason were similar across the treatment groups. All three treatments generally yielded comparable results for the secondary efficacy variables and all treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Long-term treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., the recommended dose for OA, was as effective and well tolerated as celecoxib 200 mg o.d. in patients with OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT00145301.

COX-2 selective inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) in osteoarthritis (OA) and their gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renovascular, and hepatic side effects compared with traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and literature reviews.

RESULTS

Coxibs are comparable to traditional NSAIDs, providing moderate benefit for OA patients in pain and function versus placebo. NSAIDs, including coxibs, are superior to acetaminophen for OA, particularly in patients with moderate to severe pain. Coxibs decrease gastroduodenal ulcers (74% relative risk reduction) and ulcer complications (61% reduction) versus traditional NSAIDs. Meta-analysis of randomized trials indicates that coxibs increase the risk of myocardial infarctions approximately twofold versus placebo and versus naproxen, but do not increase the risk versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. NSAIDs, including coxibs, commonly cause fluid retention and increase blood pressure and uncommonly induce congestive heart failure or significant renal dysfunction; risk factors include advanced age, hypertension, and heart or kidney disease. NSAIDs are a rare cause of clinical hepatotoxicity (<1 liver-related death per 100,000 NSAID users in clinical studies). Increased rates of aminotransferase elevations occur with rofecoxib (2%) and high-dose lumiracoxib (3%), and postmarketing cases of clinical liver injury with lumiracoxib have been reported recently.

CONCLUSIONS

Coxibs are as effective as traditional NSAIDs and superior to acetaminophen for the treatment of OA. Coxibs cause fewer gastrointestinal complications than traditional NSAIDs. Coxibs increase cardiovascular risk versus placebo and naproxen-but probably not versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. Blood pressure commonly increases after initiation of selective or nonselective NSAIDs, especially in hypertensive patients.

Atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: systematic review of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics are increasingly used for treatment of mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and considered to have fewer extrapyramidal effects than older antipsychotics.

METHODS

We examined efficacy in randomised trials of bipolar disorder where the presenting episode was either depression, or manic/mixed, comparing atypical antipsychotic with placebo or active comparator, examined withdrawals for any cause, or due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and combined all phases for adverse event analysis. Studies were found through systematic search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), and data combined for analysis where there was clinical homogeneity, with a special reference to trial duration.

RESULTS

In five trials (2,206 patients) participants presented with a depressive episode, and in 25 trials (6,174 patients) the presenting episode was manic or mixed. In 8-week studies presenting with depression, quetiapine and olanzapine produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of 5-6, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH 12). With mania or mixed presentation atypical antipsychotics produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of about 5 up to six weeks, and 4 at 6-12 weeks, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH of about 22) in studies of 6-12 weeks. In comparisons with established treatments, atypical antipsychotics had similar efficacy, but significantly fewer adverse event withdrawals (NNT to prevent one withdrawal about 10). In maintenance trials atypical antipsychotics had significantly fewer relapses to depression or mania than placebo or active comparator. In placebo-controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with higher rates of weight gain of >or=7% (mainly olanzapine trials), somnolence, and extrapyramidal symptoms. In active controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with lower rates of extrapyramidal symptoms, but higher rates of weight gain and somnolence.

CONCLUSION

Atypical antipsychotics are effective in treating both phases of bipolar disorder compared with placebo, and as effective as established drug therapies. Atypical antipsychotics produce fewer extrapyramidal symptoms, but weight gain is more common (with olanzapine). There is insufficient data confidently to distinguish between different atypical antipsychotics.

Efficacy of electrical nerve stimulation for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the efficacy of electrical nerve stimulation (ENS) for the treatment of chronic pain of multiple etiologies have produced mixed results. The objective of the present study was to determine whether ENS is an effective treatment for chronic musculoskeletal pain by using statistical techniques that permit accumulation of a sample size with adequate power. Randomized, controlled trials published between January 1976 and November 2006 were obtained from the National Libraries of Medicine, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Prospective, placebo-controlled studies using any modality of ENS to treat chronic musculoskeletal pain in any anatomical location were included. The main outcome measure was pain at rest. The use of statistical methods to enhance data extraction and a random-effects meta-analysis to accommodate heterogeneity of ENS therapies permitted an adequate number of well designed trials of ENS to be included in the meta-analysis. A total of 38 studies in 29 papers, which included 335 placebo, 474 ENS, and 418 cross-over (both placebo and at least one ENS treatment) patients, met the selection criteria. The overall results showed a significant decrease in pain with ENS therapy using a random-effects model (p<0.0005). These results indicate that ENS is an effective treatment modality for chronic musculoskeletal pain and that previous, equivocal results may have been due to underpowered studies.

An evidence-based update on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including both traditional nonselective NSAIDs and the selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, are widely used for their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. NSAIDs are a necessary choice in pain management because of the integrated role of the COX pathway in the generation of inflammation and in the biochemical recognition of pain. This group of drugs has recently come under scrutiny because of recent focus in the literature on the various adverse effects that can occur when applying NSAIDs. This review will provide an educational update on the current evidence of the efficacy and adverse effects of NSAIDs. It aims to answer the following questions: (1) are there clinically important differences in the efficacy and safety between the different NSAIDs, (2) if there are differences, which are the ones that are more effective and associated with fewer adverse effects, and (3) which are the effective therapeutic approaches that could reduce the adverse effects of NSAIDs. Finally, an algorithm is proposed which delineates a general decision-making tree to select the most appropriate analgesic for an individual patient based on the evidence reviewed.

Cardiovascular effects of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors

The data that have accumulated in recent years underscore the importance of carefully weighing the risks and benefits of traditional NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors before making therapeutic decisions for the management of chronic arthritis. In clinical practice, the majority of patients with moderate to severe arthritis who might benefit from NSAID or COX-2 therapy are likely to be elderly and, therefore, at higher risk for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events than younger persons. Thus, these patients are more likely to be taking low-dose aspirin and using over-the-counter NSAIDs for pain. Selecting a combination of therapies that provides relief from arthritis-related symptoms, minimizes cardiovascular risk, and preserves the gastrointestinal mucosa is complex. Factors to consider include the interference of certain NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen, with the antiplatelet effects of aspirin; direct effects of non-selective NSAIDs and of COX-2 selective inhibitors on fluid retention and blood pressure; emerging data about cardiovascular risks associated with these drugs; differences between these agents with regard to associated gastrointestinal adverse event rates; and the feasibility of coadministration of anti-inflammatory therapies with gastro-protective agents.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyxlooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) and gastrointestinal harm: review of clinical trials and clinical practice

Background

Gastrointestinal harm, known to occur with NSAIDs, is thought to be lower with NSAID and gastroprotective agent, and with inhibitors selective to cyclooxygenase-2 (coxibs) at usual plasma concentrations. We examine competing strategies for available evidence of reduced gastrointestinal bleeding in clinical trials and combine this evidence with evidence from clinical practice on whether the strategies work in the real world, whether guidance on appropriate prescribing is followed, and whether patients adhere to the strategies.

Methods

We used a series of systematic literature searches to find full publications of relevant studies for evidence about the efficacy of these different gastroprotection strategies in clinical trials, and for evidence that they worked and were adhered to in clinical practice – whether they were effective. We chose to use good quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses when they were available.

Results

Evidence of efficacy of coxibs compared to NSAIDs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding was strong, with consistent reductions in events of about 50% in large randomised trials (34,460 patients), meta-analyses of randomised trials (52,474 patients), and large observational studies in clinical practice (3,093 bleeding events). Evidence on the efficacy of NSAID plus gastroprotection with acid suppressants (proton pump inhibitors, PPIs, and histamine antagonists, H2As) was based mainly on the surrogate measure of endoscopic ulcers. The limited information on damage to the bowel suggested that NSAID plus PPI was more damaging than coxibs.

Eleven observational studies studied 1.6 million patients, of whom 911,000 were NSAID users, and showed that 76% (range 65% to 90%) of patients with at least one gastrointestinal risk factor received no prescription for gastroprotective agent with an NSAID. The exception was a cohort of US veterans with previous gastrointestinal bleeding, where 75% had gastroprotection with an NSAID. When gastroprotection was prescribed, it was often described as inadequate. A single study suggested that patient adherence to prescribed gastroprotection was low.

Conclusion

Evidence for efficacy of gastroprotection strategies with NSAIDs is limited. In clinical practice few patients who need gastroprotection get it, and those who get it may not take it. For coxibs, gastroprotection is inherent, although probably not complete.

Meta-analysis: cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

PURPOSE

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on cardiovascular events in trials of joint disease and Alzheimer's disease.

METHODS

We performed comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from 1966 to July 2005, and references of identified articles and reviews. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials of at least 6 weeks duration that evaluated nonselective NSAIDs in trials of joint disease or Alzheimer's disease, and reported at least one cardiovascular event or death. The outcome measured was the composite of death, myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular accident, with the pooled results reported as odds ratios (OR). Subgroup analyses evaluated the difference between trials of joint disease and Alzheimer's disease, and for naproxen and non-naproxen NSAIDs.

RESULTS

Pooled data from 13 trials with 7718 participants showed that nonselective NSAIDs had no significant effect on cardiovascular events (OR 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 2.1). No significant effect was seen for joint disease trials (OR 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2 to 1.7) or Alzheimer disease trials (OR 1.6; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.7). There was no significant difference in results for naproxen and non-naproxen NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Nonselective NSAIDs have no significant effect on cardiovascular events or death in trials of joint disease and Alzheimer disease, but a small adverse effect could not be excluded. An indication for risk was present in trials of Alzheimer's disease but not in joint disease trials. There was no significant adverse or cardioprotective effect of naproxen.

Systematic review: coxibs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or no cyclooxygenase inhibitors in gastroenterological high-risk patients?

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been marketed as alternatives of conventional, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with the purpose of reducing/eliminating the risk of ulcer complications. Unexpectedly, randomized-controlled trials revealed that long-term use of coxibs, such as rofecoxib, significantly increased the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, while the use of valdecoxib was associated with potentially life-threatening skin reactions. Subsequently, rofecoxib and valdecoxib were withdrawn from the market. Although more strict precautions for other coxibs, such as celecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib and parecoxib, may be accepted/recommended by regulatory agencies, a critical review of published data suggests that their use may not be justified - even in high-risk patients - taking benefits, costs and risks into consideration. Clinicians should, therefore, never prescribe coxibs to patients with cardiovascular risk factors, and should only reluctantly prescribe coxibs to patients with a history of ulcer disease or dyspepsia to overcome persistent pain due to, e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Instead, they should consider using conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in combination with a proton pump inhibitor or a prostaglandin analogue, especially for patients with increased cardiovascular risks, i.e. established ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and/or peripheral arterial disease, or alternatively acetaminophen. An evidence-based algorithm for treatment of a chronic arthritis patient with one or more gastrointestinal risk factors is presented.

Cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs: achieving a balance

Conventional 'nonselective' nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for the treatment of pain and inflammation; however, the potential gastrointestinal risks associated with their use can be a cause for concern. In response to the adverse effects that can accompany nonselective NSAID use, selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors were developed to target the COX-2 isoenzyme, thus providing anti-inflammatory and analgesic benefits while theoretically sparing the gastroprotective activity of the COX-1 isoenzyme. Data from large-scale clinical trials have confirmed that the COX-2 inhibitors are associated with substantial reductions in gastrointestinal risk in the majority of patients who do not receive aspirin. However, some or all of the gastrointestinal benefit of COX-2 inhibitors may be lost in patients who receive low, cardioprotective doses of aspirin, and recent evidence suggests that some of these agents, at some doses, may be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular adverse events compared with no therapy. The risks and benefits of conventional NSAIDs and of COX-2 inhibitors must be weighed carefully; in clinical practice many patients who might benefit from NSAID or COX-2 therapy are likely to be elderly and at relatively high risk for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events. These patients are also more likely to be taking low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis and over-the-counter NSAIDs for pain. Identifying therapies that provide relief from arthritis related symptoms, confer optimum cardioprotection, and preserve the gastrointestinal mucosa is complex. Factors to consider include the interference of certain NSAIDs with the antiplatelet effects of aspirin, differences in the adverse gastrointestinal event rates among nonselective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors, emerging data regarding the relative risks for cardiovascular events associated with these drugs, and the feasibility and cost of co-therapy with proton pump inhibitors.

Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with a topical diclofenac solution: a randomised controlled, 6-week trial [ISRCTN53366886]

BACKGROUND

Topical NSAIDs have been proven to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) in short-term studies (2 weeks). To justify its chronic use, efficacy of a topical NSAID over a longer term of study should be demonstrated. The efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution over a 6-week treatment course in symptomatic primary OA of the knee was investigated.

METHODS

216 men and women, age 40-85 years, with radiologically confirmed primary OA of the knee and a flare of pain at baseline following discontinuation of prior therapy were enrolled into this double-blind study. Participants applied either a topical diclofenac solution (Pennsaid) or vehicle control solution (carrier with no diclofenac); 40 drops 4 times daily directly to the painful knee(s), without massage, for 6 weeks. Pre-planned primary efficacy outcome measures included the core continuous variables pain relief and improved physical function measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) LK3.1 OA Index, and improved patient global assessment (PGA). Secondary efficacy measure was reduced stiffness. Safety assessments included adverse events and vital signs.

RESULTS

The topical diclofenac group had a significantly greater mean change in score (final minus baseline) compared to the vehicle control group for pain (-5.2 vs. -3.3, p = 0.003), physical function (-13.4 vs. -6.9, p = 0.001), PGA (-1.3 vs. -0.7, p = 0.0001) and stiffness (-1.8 vs. -0.9, p = 0.002). The mean difference between treatment arms (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 1.9 (0.7 to 3.2), 6.5 (2.5 to 10.5), 0.6 (0.2 to 0.9), and 0.9 (0.3 to 1.4), respectively. Safety analyses showed that topical diclofenac caused skin irritation, mostly minor local skin dryness, in 42/107 (39%), leading to discontinuation of treatment in 5/107 (5%) participants.

CONCLUSION

This topical diclofenac solution demonstrated relief at 6 weeks of the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee.

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Evidence-based rheumatology practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is intended to update readers on recent developments in the evidence-based practice of rheumatology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several new or updated evidence-based practice guidelines have recently emerged. In addition, a large body of evidence upon which to base practice has been addressed in the many systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have been newly published, including nine new or updated Cochrane reviews. Several studies have also investigated adherence to practice guidelines, interventions to improve clinical practice, and quality of care in the field of rheumatology in the past year.

SUMMARY

Evidence-based rheumatology is an ongoing effort, with continuing revision and update of recommendations. It may currently be used to address a wide variety of clinical questions. The initiatives on practice-based research to establish quality indicators and identify areas where rheumatology practice can be enhanced are a welcome addition to health services research in this field.

An Overview of Hip Injuries in Running

Running has steadily gained in worldwide popularity and is the primary exercise modality for many individuals of all ages. Its low cost, versatility, convenience and related health benefits appeal to men and women of broad cultural, ethnic and economic backgrounds. With more children and adults participating in recreational and competitive running, the incidence of injuries has steadily increased. Most running-related injuries affecting the lower extremities are due to preventable training errors, and some may necessitate medical evaluation or a significant reduction in training. Hip injuries in runners are due to interactions of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that adversely affect the complex regional anatomy. Acute or chronic hip pain presents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge because the vague, nonspecific symptoms and signs may originate from local, regional or distant foci. Muscle strains and tendonitis are the most common aetiologies of hip pain and typically result from sudden acceleration/deceleration manoeuvres, direction changes or eccentric contractions. Apophysitis and avulsion fractures may affect younger runners and produce localised pain at muscle attachment sites. Iliotibial band syndrome is a common cause of lateral hip and knee symptoms characterised by sharp or burning pain that is exacerbated by activity. Bursitis, due to repetitive activity or acute trauma, may affect the trochanteric, ischial or iliopectineal bursae. Hip osteoarthritis may also produce persistent pain that worsens with running. Stress fractures are potentially serious conditions that affect women more frequently than men. Snapping hip syndrome is a benign condition that results from tight connective tissues' passing repeatedly over the greater trochanter, anterior hip capsule, lesser trochanter, femoral head or iliopectineal eminence. Acetabular labral tears, sports hernias and nerve entrapment syndromes are also potential causes of persistent hip pain in runners. Treatment of hip pain in running should focus not only on addressing the symptoms but also identifying the underlying conditions that precipitated the injury. Injury prevention and comprehensive rehabilitation are essential, since prior hip injuries increase the risk of subsequent ones. Coaches, trainers and medical personal who care for runners should advocate running regimens, surfaces, shoes, technique and individualised conditioning programmes that minimise the risk of initial or recurrent hip injuries.