Comparison of low-dose rofecoxib versus 1000 mg naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. Results of two randomized treatment trials of six weeks duration

Acute Pain Management

Acute pain management is improving steadily over the past few years, but training and professional education are still lacking in many professions. Untreated or undertreated acute pain could have detrimental effects on the patient in terms of comfort and recovery from trauma or surgery. Acute undertreated pain can decrease a patient's vascular perfusion, increase oxygen demand, suppress the immune system, and possibly risk increased incidence of venous thrombosis. Although acute postoperative pain needs to be managed aggressively, patients are most vulnerable during this period for developing adverse effects, and therefore, patient assessment and careful drug therapy evaluation are necessary processes in therapeutic planning. Acute pain management requires careful and thorough initial assessment and follow-up reassessment in addition to frequent dosage adjustments, and managing analgesic induced side effects. Analgesic selection and dosing must be based on the patient's past and recent analgesic exposure. There is no single acute pain management regimen that is suitable for all patients. Analgesics must be tailored to the individual patient.

Prevention of NSAID-related upper gastrointestinal toxicity: a meta-analysis of traditional NSAIDs with gastroprotection and COX-2 inhibitors

Background:

Traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) and COX-2 inhibitors (COX-2s) are important agents for the treatment of a variety or arthritic conditions. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of misoprostol, H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the prevention of tNSAID related upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, and to review the upper gastrointestinal (GI) safety of COX-2s.

Methods:

An extensive literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic agents used for the prevention of upper GI toxicity, and RCTs that assessed the GI safety of the newer COX-2s. Meta-analysis was performed in accordance with accepted techniques.

Results:

39 gastroprotection and 69 COX-2 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Misoprostol, PPIs, and double doses of H2RAs are effective at reducing the risk of both endoscopic gastric and duodenal tNSAID-induced ulcers. Standard doses of H2RAs are not effective at reducing the risk of tNSAID-induced gastric ulcers, but reduce the risk of duodenal ulcers. Misoprostol is associated with greater adverse effects than the other agents, particularly at higher doses. COX-2s are associated with fewer endoscopic ulcers and clinically important ulcer complications, and have fewer treatment withdrawals due to GI symptoms than tNSAIDS. Acetylsalicylic acid appears to diminish the benefit of COX-2s over tNSAIDs. In high risk GI patients, tNSAID with a PPI or a COX-2 alone appear to offer similar GI safety, but a strategy of a COX-2 with a PPI appears to offer the greatest GI safety.

Conclusion:

Several strategies are available to reduce the risk of upper GI toxicity with tNSAIDs. The choice between these strategies needs to consider patients’ underlying GI and cardiovascular risk.

Gastrointestinal safety of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2s) are used to treat a variety of arthritic and inflammatory conditions. The aim of this study was to assess the upper gastrointestinal (GI) harms of the long-term use of COX-2s, compared with nonselective NSAIDs and placebo, in arthritis sufferers.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Searches were conducted in (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (2) the Cochrane Collaboration Library (2005), (3) MEDLINE (to December 2006), and (4) Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) (to June 2005). Reference lists from trials and abstracts of conference proceedings were searched by hand, and experts were contacted to identify further relevant trials. RCTs of celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib, and lumiracoxib were included if they reported on endoscopic ulcers, clinically important ulcer complications, or adverse gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms with the use of these COX-2s, compared with placebo or with nonselective NSAIDs. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. Data were analyzed by using Review Manager 4.2 in accordance with accepted meta-analysis techniques.

RESULTS

Compared with nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2s produced significantly fewer gastroduodenal ulcers (relative risk, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.30) and clinically important ulcer complications (relative risk, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.50), as well as fewer treatment withdrawals caused by GI symptoms. The co-administration of acetylsalicylic acid appears to reduce the GI safety of COX-2s in subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

COX-2s appear to offer greater upper GI safety and are better tolerated than nonselective NSAIDs. The co-administration of acetylsalicylic acid might reduce the safety advantage of COX-2s over that of nonselective NSAIDs.

Coxibs versus combination NSAID and PPI therapy for chronic pain: an exploration of the risks, benefits, and costs

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies qualitatively to compare the risks (gastrointestinal [GI] and cardiovascular) and benefits (pain control) of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs) relative to an alternative therapy of a nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) combined with a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and explore circumstances when coxibs may be appropriate.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a search of MEDLINE (Ovid Technologies, 1985-November 2005; English language, clinical trial), PubMed (1985-November 2005; English language, clinical trial, humans), and the Cochrane Collaboration using the terms selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs, as well as the various chemical names for specific coxib agents. Studies that compared a coxib with a nonselective NSAID and provided data concerning our outcomes of interest were included and categorized by the outcome variable, as well as by the specific coxib studied.

RESULTS

The majority of the numerous studies that evaluated pain as an endpoint showed no difference between coxib and nonselective NSAID therapy. However, while limited, preliminary safety data regarding the effects of both classes on the upper and lower GI tract suggest coxib superiority. Although coxibs are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events (CVEs) compared with placebo, this effect has not been conclusively shown compared with nonselective NSAIDs. Currently, coxib therapy is more expensive than combination therapy using a nonselective NSAID plus a PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with combination therapy including a nonselective NSAID and PPI, coxibs provide equivalent pain control and may have a lower GI tract complication profile, but at an unknown increased risk of CVEs and a greater financial cost. Coxib therapy may be an appropriate treatment for chronic pain in select patients with higher risks of GI complications, lower risk of CVEs, and in whom greater cost is not a restraint.

Comparing rates of dyspepsia with Coxibs vs NSAID+PPI: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Because dyspeptic symptoms are far more prevalent than ulcer complications in users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), economic models indicate that dyspepsia rates (not ulcer complications) are the major determinant of cost-effectiveness in treating arthritis. We performed a meta-analysis to compare rates of dyspepsia for two common therapies in high-risk patients with arthritis: cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (Coxib) alone and combination therapy with a nonselective NSAID and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (NSAID+PPI).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify trials comparing either a Coxib versus NSAID or NSAID+PPI versus NSAID in chronic arthritis. We selected studies that report incident dyspepsia, defined a priori as "epigastric pain," "dyspepsia," and "nausea." We then performed meta-analysis to compare the relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction of dyspepsia for Coxib versus NSAID and NSAID+PPI versus NSAID.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 26 studies comparing dyspepsia between Coxibs and NSAIDs revealed a 12% relative risk reduction for Coxibs with an absolute risk reduction of 3.7%. Meta-analysis of four studies comparing dyspepsia between the NSAID+PPI combination and NSAIDs alone revealed a 66% relative risk reduction for NSAID+PPI with an absolute risk reduction of 9%. Compared with the NSAID strategy, the number needed to treat to prevent dyspepsia was 27 for Coxibs and 11 for NSAID+PPI.

CONCLUSION

NSAID+PPI affords greater risk reduction for dyspepsia than Coxibs when compared with the common baseline of NSAIDs. Because there are limited head-to-head data comparing Coxibs versus NSAID+PPI, these data provide the best indirect evidence that NSAID+PPI may be superior to Coxibs in minimizing incident dyspepsia.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hepatic toxicity: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials in arthritis patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) might cause hepatic side effects, but the frequency of these laboratory and clinical side effects is uncertain.

METHODS

Searches of bibliographic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE and of public archives of the Food and Drug Administration were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib, or meloxicam in adults with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis that provided information on aminotransferase elevations >3 x upper limit of normal, liver-related discontinuations, hepatic serious adverse events, liver-related hospitalizations, or liver-related deaths. The proportion of patients with each of the hepatic toxicity outcomes was calculated separately by using sample size weighted pooling for each NSAID.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven articles from the bibliographic database and 65 studies from the Food and Drug Administration archives met inclusion criteria. Diclofenac (3.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.12%-4.03%) and rofecoxib (1.80%; 95% CI, 1.52%-2.13%) had higher rates of aminotransferase >3 x upper limit of normal than placebo (0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.51) and the other NSAIDs (all < or = 0.43%). The 95% CIs for liver-related discontinuations of all NSAIDs except diclofenac (2.17%; 95% CI, 1.78%-2.64%) overlapped with placebo. Only 1 liver-related hospitalization (among 37,671 patients) and 1 liver-related death (among 51,942 patients) occurred, with naproxen.

CONCLUSIONS

Diclofenac and rofecoxib had higher rates of aminotransferase elevations than placebo and other NSAIDs studied. No NSAID studied had increased rates of liver-related serious adverse events, hospitalizations, or deaths.

Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Editor's note: The anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market at the end of September 2004 after it was shown that long-term use (greater than 18 months) could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Further information is available at www.vioxx.com. Osteoarthritis is a chronic disease of the joints, characterised by joint pain, stiffness and loss of physical function. Its onset is age-related and occurs usually between the ages of 50 and 60. It is the commonest cause of disability in those aged over 65, with OA of the knee and/or hip affecting over 20 per cent of the elderly population.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the efficacy and safety of rofecoxib in the management of OA by systematic review of available evidence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases up to August 2004: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. Comparable trials were pooled using fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs were included. The comparators were placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, nimesulide, nabumetone, paracetamol, celecoxib and Arthrotec. The evidence reviewed indicated that rofecoxib was more effective than placebo (patient global response RR 1.75 95% CI: 1.35, 2.26) but was associated with more adverse events (RR 1.32 95% CI 1.11, 1.56). There were no consistent differences in efficacy between rofecoxib and any of the active comparators at equivalent doses. Endoscopic studies indicated that compared to ibuprofen 800 mg three times a day, rofecoxib caused fewer erosions and gastric ulcers at doses of 25mg and 50mg; the difference in duodenal ulcers was evident only at a dose of 25mg. Rofecoxib 50mg also caused more endoscopically observed ulcers greater than rofecoxib 25mg (RR 2.48 CI: 1.21, 5.11). Very few of the trials reported overall rates of GI adverse events although rofecoxib was found to cause fewer GI events than naproxen. Only one of the nine trials comparing rofecoxib to celecoxib reported on the overall rates of GI events and this was a comparison of the higher recommended dose of rofecoxib with the lower recommended dose of celecoxib. Similarly, the three trials in older hypertensive patients that examined the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib and celecoxib used non-comparable doses; the results of these studies indicated that rofecoxib caused more patients to have oedema and a clinically significant increase in systolic blood pressure. This difference between rofecoxib and celecoxib was not evident in studies conducted in more general populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rofecoxib was voluntarily withdrawn from global markets in October 2004 therefore there are no implications for practice concerning its use. There remains a number of questions over both the benefits and risks associated with Cox II selective agents and further work is ongoing.

Benefit-risk assessment of rofecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis

NSAIDs are widely used to treat pain and inflammation in osteoarthritis. Their use in this indication is generally intermittent and fluctuates with the intensity of the disease. Nonetheless, success of the therapy is frequently limited by injury to the gastrointestinal mucosa and complications such as bleeding, ulceration and perforation. A careful and detailed evaluation of these aspects in regard to the newly introduced NSAIDs is of considerable clinical importance. This review focuses on the NSAID rofecoxib, one of the selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, which are claimed to be as effective as nonselective NSAIDs with better gastrointestinal tolerability. Indeed, phase II, phase III and epidemiological studies have revealed that the efficacy of rofecoxib is comparable to that of conventional NSAIDs but with lower gastrointestinal toxicity, although this advantage may not be demonstrable in every patient. In patients treated with low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for cardiovascular prophylaxis, celecoxib (another selective COX-2 inhibitor) seems to have no obvious advantages over conventional NSAIDs, and similar conclusions may be applied to rofecoxib. A comparison of NSAID therapy +/- concomitant low-dose aspirin was not a primary outcome in this trial with celecoxib and there is thus a need for further studies which compare the gastrointestinal risk of a selective COX-2 inhibitor plus aspirin versus a conventional NSAID. Recent debate has emerged regarding the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib. Although there is evidence both for and against higher cardiovascular risk with rofecoxib, a retrospective cohort study recently published suggested that there is no increased risk of acute myocardial infarction in the short-term when compared with non-selective NSAIDs. The renal toxicity of rofecoxib has been thoroughly investigated. Clinical studies revealed renal effects of rofecoxib similar to those of conventional NSAIDs. Since adverse effects increase with the degree of renal impairment, monitoring of renal function should be carried out in patients at risk. Although there are still insufficient data concerning certain important adverse effects of rofecoxib, this drug is becoming an important alternative in the therapy of osteoarthritis, especially in high-risk patients. Clinicians need to weigh up the benefits and risks of rofecoxib on a case-by-base basis.

Improved control of osteoarthritis pain and self-reported health status in non-responders to celecoxib switched to rofecoxib: results of PAVIA, an open-label post-marketing survey in Spain

METHODS

An open-label multicentre study was conducted in primary care centres in Spain to investigate the effect of a switch from celecoxib to rofecoxib among patients with osteoarthritis and to identify factors associated with a good response to rofecoxib treatment. Patients were eligible to participate in this study if their physicians considered that they might benefit from such a change of therapy. A total of 2,228 patients (1481 women) were enrolled in the study: participants' mean age was 66.37 years (SD 9.04). Mean duration of OA was 7.44 (6.38) years. Predominant sites of OA included the knee (1,132 patients, 50.8%), lumbar spine (977 patients, 43.9%) and cervical spine (739 patients, 33.2%). At baseline, most patients (77%) were being prescribed celecoxib 200 mg/day; during the study most (92.5%) received rofecoxib 25 mg/day. The mean interval between switch to rofecoxib and follow-up interview was 33 days.

PRINCIPAL RESULTS

Patients considered the therapeutic response to rofecoxib substantially and significantly superior to that previously obtained with celecoxib for the management of OA-related pain and OA-related health status (p < 0.001). Seventy-two percent of patients classified their response to rofecoxib therapy as 'good' or 'very good' (vs 6.6% of patients at baseline with celecoxib) and 89.3% of patients expressed satisfaction with rofecoxib (vs 28.9% at baseline with celecoxib). Improvements reported in patient self-assessments following rofecoxib therapy were complemented by similar changes in physician perceptions. The number of patients considered by their doctors to have 'good' or 'very good' OA-related health status rose from 10.1% at baseline to 80.0% on completion of rofecoxib therapy. Ancillary indices such as the proportion of patients with self-reported depression were also favourably influenced by the switch to rofecoxib from celecoxib. Determinants of response: Patient characteristics identified in multivariate analysis as predictive of a favourable response to rofecoxib comprised age, obesity, depression, diabetes and OA-related overall health status.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this observational study indicate that rofecoxib 25 mg/day is likely to be more effective in patients with OA who do not respond well to celecoxib 200 mg/day and satisfies a large proportion of both patients and physicians. These data are of practical interest because they indicate that, at the doses most often used in primary practice in Spain to treat OA, many patients who are dissatisfied with the effects of celecoxib 200 mg/day may benefit from a switch to rofecoxib 25 mg/day. The data obtained in this study also reveal that younger OA patients with relatively uncomplicated clinical circumstances (a population in which use of Coxibs is relatively low at present) are likely to derive substantial benefit from a switch to rofecoxib therapy.