Functional status and health-related quality of life of elderly osteoarthritic patients treated with celecoxib

Celecoxib for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies. Celecoxib versus placeboCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).Compared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).There was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).Results were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).Compared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).Based on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).In comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).No studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.

Relative efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, celecoxib, and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis : A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials based on patient withdrawal

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, celecoxib, and naproxen at recommended dosages in patients with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib 30-60 mg, celecoxib 200-400 mg, and naproxen 1000 mg, based on the number of patient withdrawals among those with OA, were included in this network meta-analysis. We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from the RCTs.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, including 5,942 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The proportion of patient withdrawals due to lack of efficacy was significantly lower in the etoricoxib 30-60 mg (OR 0.21, 95 % CrI 0.12-0.38), celecoxib 200-400 mg (OR 0.29, 95 % CrI 0.18-0.47), and naproxen 1000 mg (OR 0.31, 95 % CrI 0.18-0.51) groups than in the placebo group. The number of patient withdrawals due to lack of efficacy tended to be lower in the etoricoxib 30-60 mg group than in the naproxen 1000 mg and celecoxib 200-400 mg groups, although they did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.68, 95 % CrI 0.36-1.33 and OR 0.70, 95 % CrI 0.38-1.37, respectively). Ranking probabilities based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that etoricoxib 30-60 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment based on the number of withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (SUCRA = 0.9168) followed by celecoxib 200-400 mg (SUCRA = 0.5659), naproxen 1000 mg (SUCRA = 0.5171), and placebo (SUCRA = 0.000189). With respect to tolerability, the number of withdrawals due to adverse events was not significantly different among etoricoxib, celecoxib, naproxen, and placebo, although it tended to be lower with etoricoxib and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Etoricoxib 30-60 mg, celecoxib 200-400 mg, and naproxen 1000 mg were more efficacious than placebo. However, there was no significant difference in efficacy and tolerability between the medications.

Comparison between 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID oral celecoxib in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis

This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of 100 mg BID and 200 mg QD oral celecoxib in the treatment of OA of the knee or hip. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through from inception to August 2014. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine direct and indirect evidences on treatment effectiveness and safety. A total of 24 RCTs covering 11696 patients were included. For the comparison in between the two dosage regimens, 100 mg BID oral celecoxib exhibited a greater probability to be the preferred one either in terms of pain intensity or function at the last follow-up time point. For total gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs), both of the two dosage regimens demonstrated a higher incidence compared to the placebo group. Further analyses of GI AEs revealed that only 200 mg QD was associated with a significantly higher risk of abdominal pain when compared with placebo. Furthermore, 100 mg BID showed a significantly lower incidence of skin AEs when compared with 200 mg QD and placebo. Maybe 100 mg BID should be considered as the preferred dosage regimen in the treatment of knee or hip OA.

Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.

RESULTS

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.

Efficacy of etoricoxib, celecoxib, lumiracoxib, non-selective NSAIDs, and acetaminophen in osteoarthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

Objective:

To compare the efficacy of etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, celecoxib, non-selective (ns) NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA)

Methods:

Randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the effects of acetaminophen 4000mg, diclofenac 150mg, naproxen 1000mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, celecoxib 100-400mg, lumiracoxib 100-400mg, and etoricoxib 30-60mg with treatment duration of at least two weeks were identified with a systematic literature search. The endpoints of interest were pain, physical function and patient global assessment of disease status (PGADS). Pain and physical function reported on different scales (VAS or LIKERT) were translated into effect sizes (ES). An ES 0.2 - 0.5 was defined as a “small” treatment effect, whereas ES of 0.5 – 0.8 and > 0.8 were defined as “moderate” and “large”, respectively. A negative effect indicated superior effects of the treatment group compared to the control group. Results of all trials were analyzed simultaneously with a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison.

Results:

There is a >95% probability that etoricoxib (30 or 60mg) shows the greatest improvement in pain and physical function of all interventions compared. ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.66 (95% Credible Interval -0.83; -0.49), -0.32 (-0.50; -0.14), -0.25 (-0.53; 0.03), and -0.17 (-0.41; 0.08), respectively. Regarding physical functioning, ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.61 (-0.76; -0.46), -0.27 (-0.43; -0.10), -0.20 (-0.47; 0.07), and -0.09 (- 0.33; 0.14) respectively. The greatest improvements in PGADS were expected with either etoricoxib or diclofenac.

Conclusion:

The current study estimated the efficacy of acetaminophen, nsNSAIDs, and COX-2 selective NSAIDs in OA and found that etoricoxib 30 mg is likely to result in the greatest improvements in pain and physical function. Differences in PGADS between interventions were smaller.

Celecoxib: a review of its use for symptomatic relief in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

Celecoxib (Celebrex®) was the first cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) to be introduced into clinical practice. Coxibs were developed to provide anti-inflammatory/analgesic activity similar to that of nonselective NSAIDs, but without their upper gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, which is thought to result largely from COX-1 inhibition. Celecoxib is indicated in the EU for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in adults. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib in these EU-approved indications, as well as overviewing its pharmacological properties. In randomized controlled trials, celecoxib, at the recommended dosages of 200 or 400 mg/day, was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as or more effective than paracetamol (acetaminophen) and as effective as nonselective NSAIDs and the coxibs etoricoxib and lumiracoxib for the symptomatic treatment of patients with active osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. Celecoxib was generally well tolerated, with mild to moderate upper GI complaints being the most common body system adverse events. In meta-analyses and large safety studies, the incidence of upper GI ulcer complications with recommended dosages of celecoxib was significantly lower than that with nonselective NSAIDs and similar to that with paracetamol and other coxibs. However, concomitant administration of celecoxib with low-dose cardioprotective aspirin often appeared to negate the GI-sparing advantages of celecoxib over NSAIDs. Although one polyp prevention trial noted a dose-related increase in cardiovascular risk with celecoxib 400 and 800 mg/day, other trials have not found any significant difference in cardiovascular risk between celecoxib and placebo or nonselective NSAIDs. Meta-analyses and database-derived analyses are inconsistent regarding cardiovascular risk. At recommended dosages, the risks of increased thrombotic cardiovascular events, or renovascular, hepatic or hypersensitivity reactions with celecoxib would appear to be small and similar to those with NSAIDs. Celecoxib would appear to be a useful option for therapy in patients at high risk for NSAID-induced GI toxicity, or in those responding suboptimally to or intolerant of NSAIDs. To minimize any risk, particularly the cardiovascular risk, celecoxib, like all coxibs and NSAIDs, should be used at the lowest effective dosage for the shortest possible duration after a careful evaluation of the GI, cardiovascular and renal risks of the individual patient.

Influence of flare design on symptomatic efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs' (NSAIDs) symptomatic efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) is often assessed in trials with a "flare design", i.e., including only patients with an increase in their pain after stopping their usual treatment (NSAIDs or analgesic).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of the "flare design" on NSAIDs apparent symptomatic efficacy in OA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

a systematic literature research was performed in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register up to March 2009. All randomized controlled trials comparing NSAIDs vs placebo symptomatic efficacy in hip, knee, or digital OA were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

efficacy was evaluated on pain (visual analog scale), and on function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index or Lequesne index). The magnitude of the treatment effect was evaluated by calculating Cohen's effect size (ES). Meta-analysis of ES according to flare design yes/no was performed.

RESULTS

Among the 343 identified studies, 33 (20,915 patients) were included: 27 (18,667 patients) vs 6 (2248 patients) respectively in the group with vs without "flare design". Populations were comparable in each group. ESs were, for pain, -0.66 (95% confidence interval, -0.71 to -0.61), vs -0.45 (-0.54 to -0.36) in the flare design vs "no flare design" group, and for function, -0.50 (-0.55 to -0.44) vs -0.25 (-0.36 to -0.14) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the flare design used in clinical trials evaluating NSAIDs results in a treatment effect of higher magnitude. These results should be considered when designing a trial and/or interpreting the results of a trial.

Need for common internal controls when assessing the relative efficacy of pharmacologic agents using a meta-analytic approach: case study of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of common internal controls in a meta-analysis of the relative efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors (coxibs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline and US Food and Drug Administration electronic databases was performed to identify randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of coxibs (etoricoxib, celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib) in patients with hip and/or knee OA. The effect size for coxibs and common active internal controls (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], naproxen) were determined by the mean changes from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscores as compared with placebo.

RESULTS

The effect size for all coxib groups combined (0.44) indicated greater efficacy as compared with placebo, but significant heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) was observed. Rofecoxib at dosages of 12.5 mg/day and 25 mg/day and etoricoxib at a dosage of 60 mg/day had similar effect sizes (0.68 and 0.73, respectively), but these effect sizes were comparatively greater than those for both celecoxib at dosages of 200 mg/day and 100 mg twice daily or valdecoxib at a dosage of 10 mg/day (0.26 and 0.16, respectively). The effect sizes for NSAIDs or naproxen versus placebo, as determined using data from rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials, were consistently higher than the effect sizes derived from trials of celecoxib/valdecoxib. Significant heterogeneity was present in the overall effect size for NSAIDs (P = 0.007) and naproxen (P = 0.04) groups based on data available from all coxib trials.

CONCLUSION

Coxibs and common active internal controls showed larger effect sizes versus placebo in the rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials than in the celecoxib/valdecoxib trials. These findings suggest systematic differences among published coxib trials and emphasize the need for direct-comparison trials. In the absence of such trials, common internal controls should be assessed when performing indirect meta-analytic comparisons.

Upper gastrointestinal symptoms and therapies in elderly out-patients, users of non-selective NSAIDs or coxibs

BACKGROUND

The association between coxib or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use with gastrointestinal symptoms and drug prescriptions in ambulatory elderly patients is not well defined.

AIM

To evaluate the association between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug NSAID and coxib use with gastrointestinal symptoms and therapies in elderly subjects managed by their general practitioner.

MATERIALS

The study was carried out by 133 general practitioners in Italy. By using a structured interview, sex, age, physical function, current medications, new drug prescriptions and upper gastrointestinal symptoms were registered from all elderly subjects who were referred to their general practitioners during a 2-week period. The numbers of hospitalizations, gastrointestinal bleeding events and gastrointestinal diagnostic procedures occurring during the last 6-month period were recorded.

RESULTS

Included in this study were 5515 elderly subjects. The overall prevalence of drug use was 92%. Musculo-skeletal drugs were taken by 15% of patients; NSAIDs were taken by 6%, and coxibs by 3% of patients. A significantly higher prevalence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms was observed in elderly NSAID users compared with coxib users and non-users of musculo-skeletal drugs (44% vs. 33% vs. 32% respectively, P = 0.001). The prescriptions of drugs for acid-related disorders were significantly higher in patients who were concomitantly taking NSAID rather than coxibs (13% vs. 6%, P < 0.01). The prescriptions of drugs for acid-related disorders were significantly associated with the presence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.6-1.9), previous gastrointestinal disorders (OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3) and NSAID use (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.2), but no coxib use.

CONCLUSION

In this elderly population, upper gastrointestinal symptoms and prescriptions for gastroenterological drugs were higher in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users than coxib users and non-users of musculo-skeletal drugs.

Measuring health-related quality of life in older patient populations: a review of current approaches

The changing demographic profile of the world's population towards old age and evidence of people living for longer with less time spent in ill health highlight the importance of addressing quality-of-life (QOL) assessment issues for older people. The assessment of health-related QOL (HR-QOL) has received considerable attention in the last 2-3 decades, with a wide variety of assessment instruments available. These instruments can be either generic or disease specific, health profiles or preference based. The literature was reviewed systematically to identify studies measuring HR-QOL in older patient groups. A total of 37 studies were identified, 11 of which were randomised, controlled trials/evaluations, 14 were prospective studies that did not involve a randomised, controlled intervention, and 12 were cross-sectional studies. Studies were summarised in terms of the study aim, patient population characteristics, the instrument used to measure HR-QOL, and HR-QOL findings. A majority of studies used a generic HR-QOL instrument, the single most commonly used being the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. In many cases, a second disease-specific measure was used in combination with the generic measure. In a majority of studies involving interventions, significant improvements in HR-QOL were noted. In prospective studies, a negative impact of health conditions (e.g. myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure) was also identified using HR-QOL assessments. None of the studies in this review used HR-QOL measurement instruments that were old-age specific. Using instruments that are not specific to a particular age group enables comparisons to be made with other age groups, i.e. younger or middle-aged groups. However, the questionnaire items of HR-QOL instruments tend to be phrased predominantly in relation to physical function and thus may inadvertently discriminate against older persons, whose physical function is likely to be not as good as that of younger people. Particular issues in the assessment of HR-QOL in older patient populations include the persistent finding of a poor relationship between QOL and disability/disease severity, the dynamic nature of QOL, and the importance of valid proxy ratings for those unable to make decisions or communicate for themselves. It is important, therefore, that assessment of HR-QOL incorporates issues of importance to individual older people by broadening the scope of the measurement instruments, thus representing more validly the HR-QOL status of older patient groups. Future research in HR-QOL must incorporate the perspective of the individual in order to enable valid conclusions to be derived based on content that is relevant to the individual being assessed, thus informing management decisions, policy and practice more meaningfully.

Aging and upper gastrointestinal disorders

The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) diseases is increasing in subjects aged 65 years and over. Pathophysiological changes in esophageal functions that occur with aging may, at least in part, be responsible for the high prevalence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) in old age. GERD symptoms are different in the elderly compared to young or adult patients; moreover, esophagitis is a more severe disease in the elderly than in young subjects, relapse occurring in a high percentage of cases in those elderly patients who are not in maintenance therapy with antisecretories. In old age, PPIs are more effective than H2-blockers in healing and reducing the relapse of esophagitis; PPI therapy is well tolerated and very effective even in elderly subjects with concomitant diseases and treatments. Discontinuing maintenance treatment with PPIs after 6 months is associated with a significant increase in the relapse rate. The incidence of gastric and duodenal ulcers and their bleeding complications is increasing in old-aged populations worldwide. Approximately 53-73% of elderly peptic ulcer patients are Helicobacter pylori positive; however, the percentage of H. pylori-positive elderly patients who are treated for their infection remains very low. We now have data that demonstrate the benefit of curing H. pylori infection in elderly patients with H. pylori-associated peptic ulcer disease and severe chronic gastritis. One-week PPI-based triple therapy regimens including clarithromycin, amoxycillin and/or nitroimidazoles are highly effective and well tolerated in elderly patients. Low doses of both PPIs and clarithromycin (in combination with standard doses of amoxycillin or nitroimidazoles) are sufficient. Almost 40% of GU and 25% of DU in the elderly patients are associated with the use of NSAID and/or aspirin. Several strategies are available to prevent NSAID-related peptic ulcers, i.e. the use of low doses and/or less damaging NSAIDs, the use of coxibs, gastroprotection with antisecretory drugs, the eradication of H. pylori infection in infected patients as well as educational programs to reduce inappropriate prescriptions. Strategies for subgroups of patients that will take account of the GI and non-GI risks, i.e. disability, co-morbidity and friality of patients, according to a comprehensive geriatric assessment are recommended.

Older Adults with Osteoarthritis: Psychological Status and Physical Function

The purpose of this study was to identify how sociodemographic characteristics such as age, race, and socioeconomic status; psychosocial factors of hardiness, health promotion practices, and social support; health status; and pain are related to the ability of older, community-residing individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) to maintain psychological equilibrium and physical function. A total of 81 older adults with OA completed a survey that included a sociodemographic data form, a hardiness scale, a measure of health promoting practices, and five subscales from the Arthritis Impact Measure Scale 2 on social support, general health status, pain, and psychological status and physical function. Analyses using multiple regression showed that hardiness, pain, and social support were significant contributors to psychological status and physical function and, respectively, accounted for 53% and 54% of the variance. By knowing about OA and being aware of factors that contribute to maintaining independence in individuals with OA, nurses can provide expert help to aging individuals.

Pharmacotherapy for regional musculoskeletal pain

Studies performed on drug therapy in regional musculoskeletal pain conditions are of varying quality, and this is related to several methodological problems. The efficacy of analgesic medications is well established from clinical practice. However, both weak and especially strong opioid analgesics are associated with adverse reactions and also with dependency and abuse. The use of anti-depressants and skeletal muscle relaxants is only weakly supported by results from controlled clinical trials. The efficacy of both systemic and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been examined in several Cochrane reviews of various regional musculoskeletal pain conditions. Studies of COX-2 selective NSAIDs have not been performed in conditions with regional musculoskeletal pain, but it is assumed that COX-2 selective inhibitors will not differ from dual COX inhibitors regarding efficacy. Therefore, some of the recent controversies related to gastrointestinal safety and possible risk of myocardial infarctions are also discussed.

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition does not affect the healing of cutaneous full-thickness incisional wounds in SKH-1 mice

BACKGROUND

The inducible cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme is upregulated in inflammatory diseases, as well as in epithelial cancers, and has an established role in angiogenesis and tissue repair.

OBJECTIVE

Because of these physiological effects and the widespread use of the selective COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, we wanted to determine if inhibition of COX-2 would affect incisional skin wound healing.

METHODS

Using a cutaneous full-thickness, sutured, incisional wound model in hairless SKH-1 mice, we evaluated the role of COX-2 in the wound healing process by comparing the effects of a nonselective COX inhibitor, diclofenac, with a selective COX-2 inhibitor, SC-791. Healing was monitored for up to 28 days postincision histologically and for recovery of wound strength.

RESULTS

COX-2 expression was observed over the first week of healing, peaking at day 3 and was not affected by treatment with the selective COX-2 or nonselective COX inhibitors. Infiltrating macrophages, as well as keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts at the wound site, expressed COX-2. Neither selective COX-2, nor nonselective COX inhibition had a significant effect on the macroscopic or microscopic morphology of the wounds, whereas dexamethasone treatment resulted in epidermal and granulation tissue atrophy. In addition, neither selective COX-2, nor nonselective COX inhibition altered keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation, dermal angiogenesis or the recovery of wound tensile strength, whereas dexamethasone reduced the tensile strength of the wounds by 30-38% throughout the healing period.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that selective COX-2 inhibition does not affect the healing of surgical skin wounds.

Oral and intra-articular remedies: Review of papers published from March 2001 to February 2002

There have been considerable advances in the drug treatments used to treat osteoarthritis. The development of selective cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors (COX-II) and confirmation of their efficacy and gastrointestinal safety will reduce treatment morbidity in the elderly. Guidelines for safe and appropriate use of COX-II drugs are now available. The role of anti-inflammatory drugs in precipitating cardiorenal events has been highlighted but remains to be fully evaluated. Glucosamine, diacerein, and hyaluronan may all be disease-modifying drugs for osteoarthritis but confirmatory studies are still needed.