Efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 30 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of osteoarthritis in two identically designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies

Trends in Celecoxib Prescribing: A Single Institution 16-Month Review

Background/Objectives: Celecoxib, a COX-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), is widely prescribed for pain management due to its efficacy and improved gastrointestinal safety profile compared to traditional NSAIDs. Understanding prescription trends and their comparison to other NSAIDs provides valuable insight into prescribing behaviors in clinical settings. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed celecoxib prescriptions written by three pain management physicians in a single institution over a 16-month period from 1 January 2023 to 30 April 2024. Prescription data were collected and grouped into four 4-month intervals to assess temporal trends. Additionally, we compared celecoxib prescriptions to other commonly prescribed NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, meloxicam, naproxen, and diclofenac. Results: A total of 143 celecoxib prescriptions were identified during the study period, with a steady increase observed across consecutive intervals: 8 prescriptions from January-April 2023, 22 from May-August 2023, 46 from September-December 2023, and 67 from January-April 2024. In comparison, a total of 165 prescriptions were written for other NSAIDs over the same period, with 26 prescriptions from January-April 2023, 41 from May-August 2023, 45 from September-December 2023, and 53 from January-April 2024. While prescriptions for both celecoxib and other NSAIDs increased over time, the rate of celecoxib prescriptions showed a steeper rise. Conclusions: The findings demonstrate a notable increase in celecoxib prescriptions in this pain management clinic, outpacing the growth of other NSAIDs. This trend may reflect increasing provider preference for COX-2 selective inhibitors due to their favorable safety profile and efficacy. Further research is warranted to explore the underlying factors driving these prescribing patterns.

Efficacy and safety of SKCPT in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled phase III clinical trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent type of arthritis worldwide and a leading cause of years lost to pain and disability. Among the current pharmacological treatments for OA, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOA) induce pain relief and aim to improve joint function by relieving inflammation while causing fewer gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). SKCPT is a herbal SYSADOA formulated from Clematis mandshurica, Trichosanthes kirilowii, and Prunella vulgaris powdered extracts. This preparation has been shown to induce cartilage protection and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical studies and inhibit glycosaminoglycan degradation and catabolic gene expression in human OA chondrocytes and cartilage.

AIM OF THE STUDY

We aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of SKCPT to celecoxib and safety for treating knee OA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial enrolled adults with primary knee OA who were randomized (1:1) to SKCPT 300 mg twice daily or celecoxib 200 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 278 patients were assigned to treatment (SKCPT, 136; celecoxib, 142) for approximately 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (K-WOMAC) pain subscale scores from baseline to Day 84. The mean change (least squares [LS] mean ± standard error) from baseline to Day 84 was -23.74 ± 1.48 for SKCPT and -25.88 ± 1.44 for celecoxib. The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (LS mean) between groups was [-1.94, 6.20], confirming that the upper limit was less than the non-inferiority margin of 10. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the secondary endpoints (mean changes of K-WOMAC pain, physical, stiffness subscale, and total score, and the frequency and number of doses of rescue medications) between groups at all time points. Differences between groups in adverse events and adverse drug reactions were not significant, and no serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

SKCPT efficacy was non-inferior, and its safety profile was similar, to celecoxib. Building on previous results showing that SYSADOA reduce NSAID intake, the present results suggest that the SYSADOA SKCPT could effectively replace NSAIDs in knee OA treatment while avoiding long-term side effects.

Renal effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drugs (coxibs) are associated with the development of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal and cardiovascular, but renal effects are less known.

Objective

To assess the renal risks of coxibs compared to placebo by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials that assessed renal effects of coxibs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, parecoxib, and valdecoxib) were searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and other sources up to March 2024. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Random effect meta-analysis was employed to calculate the relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of renal effects of coxibs compared to placebo and inconsistency among studies (I 2 ). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Results

Out of 5284 retrieved records, 49 studies (comprising 46 reports) were included. Coxibs increased the risk of edema (RR 1.46; 95% CI 1.15, 1.86; I 2  = 0%; 34 studies, 19,754 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and celecoxib increased hypertensive or renal events (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08, 1.43; I 2  = 0%; 2 studies, 3589 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Etoricoxib increased the risk of hypertension (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.14, 3.46; I 2  = 34%; 13 studies, 6560 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); no difference was observed when pooling all coxibs (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.91, 1.76; I 2  = 26%; 30 studies, 16,173 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

Conclusions

Coxibs likely increase the renal adverse effects, including hypertension and edema. Awareness about the renal risks of coxibs should be increased, mainly in high-risk patient.

Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit patients' preferences and willingness-to-pay for knee osteoarthritis treatments in Thailand

Osteoarthritis is the most common type of joint disease among elderly patients around the world. In response to the need for patient-centered care, patients' and physicians' preferences for knee osteoarthritis treatments have been studied in multiple countries, but not in Thailand. The objective of this study was to investigate Thai patients' preferences and their willingness to pay (WTP) for knee osteoarthritis treatments by using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Six knee osteoarthritis treatment attributes, including pain relief, delayed disease progression, gastrointestinal side effects, kidney side effects, cardiovascular side effects, and cost, were used to develop a paper-based, DCE questionnaire survey. Patients with knee osteoarthritis, who were at least 18 years old and who provided written informed consent, were recruited from the orthopedic department in a tertiary care hospital in Thailand via convenience sampling. The conditional logit model was used to determine patients' preferences and WTP. The Institutional Review Board at Chulalongkorn University approved this study before it started. A total of 232 patients were collected and analyzed in this study. Patients preferred treatments with a higher efficacy (pain relief and delayed disease progression), a lower probability of side effects (gastrointestinal, kidney, and cardiovascular side effects), and a lower cost. Regarding efficacy and side effects, the patients weighted the importance of a 1% change in cardiovascular side effects (- 0.08) more heavily than 1% changes in kidney (- 0.07) and gastrointestinal (- 0.02) side effects, delayed disease progression (0.02), and pain relief (0.01). Patients were willing to pay 29.56 Thai Baht (THB) and 41.84 THB per month for every 1% increase in pain relief and delayed disease progression, respectively. Conversely, patients were willing to pay 52.04 THB, 145.18 THB and 164.23 THB per month for every 1% decrease in gastrointestinal, kidney, and cardiovascular side effects, respectively. In conclusion, pain relief, delayed disease progression, gastrointestinal side effects, kidney side effects, cardiovascular side effects, and the cost of treatment were significant factors among patients undergoing knee osteoarthritis treatment. Additionally, patients had a higher WTP for delayed disease progression than pain relief and a higher WTP for a reduced probability of cardiovascular side effects than gastrointestinal and kidney side effects. These findings could be used to support treatment decisions for knee osteoarthritis patients in Thailand.

Cardiovascular safety of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib compared to non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of oral celecoxib compared with a non-selective NSAID or placebo in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients. We conducted searches in EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk-of-bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The effect size was presented as a risk ratio with their 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Until July 22nd, 2021, our search identified 6279 records from which, after exclusions, 21 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled risk ratio for Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration cardiovascular events for celecoxib compared with any non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.00). The pooled risk ratio for all-cause mortality for celecoxib compared with non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.98). The cardiovascular mortality rate of celecoxib was lower than non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (risk ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.99). There was no significant difference between celecoxib and non-selective non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo in the risk of other cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib is relatively safe in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients, independent of dose or duration. But it remains uncertain whether this would remain the same in patients treated with aspirin and patients with established cardiovascular diseases.

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib combined with JOINS in the treatment of degenerative knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this study will be to investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) along with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis (SYSADOA), JOINS tablets, for degenerative knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment and to determine the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of the combination therapy. In addition, we will investigate whether JOINS treatment alone after NSAID and JOINS combination treatment is effective in relieving and maintaining knee OA symptoms.

Methods

This study will be a prospective, randomized, double-blind endpoint study design. All patients will be randomly assigned to either intervention (celecoxib+JOINS) or control (celecoxib+placebo) groups. In Part 1, the intervention group will be administered celecoxib once a day and JOINS three times a day for a total of 12 weeks. In the control group, celecoxib will be administered once a day and JOINS placebo three times a day for a total of 12 weeks. In Part 2, JOINS alone and JOINS placebo alone will be administered for an additional 24 weeks in both groups, respectively. The primary endpoint will be the amount of change during the 12 weeks as assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score compared with baseline. The secondary endpoint will be the amount of change at 1, 4, 12, 24, and 36 weeks from the baseline for pain visual analog scale, Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form Health Survey-36 and biomarkers.

Results

The trial was registered with Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT04718649). The clinical trial was also registered on Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) with the trial registration number KCT0005742.

Conclusions

The combination treatment of the most commonly used SYSADOA drug, JOINS, and selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib as the representative NSAID for knee OA treatment, can be compared with celecoxib alone treatment to determine the safety or therapeutic effect.

An international, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study (DISSCO): effect of diacerein vs celecoxib on symptoms in knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether diacerein has comparable efficacy with celecoxib in pain reduction for treatment in symptomatic knee OA patients.

METHODS

This randomized double-blind multicentre non-inferiority trial evaluated diacerein vs celecoxib treatment in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 and pain scoring ≥4 (10-cm VAS). Patients were randomized to 6 months of treatment with diacerein 50 mg (n = 187) once daily for 1 month and twice daily thereafter, or celecoxib 200 mg (n = 193) once daily. The primary outcome was the change in WOMAC pain score (0-50 cm) at 6 months, and the secondary outcomes were WOMAC sub-scores, VAS pain score, and the OMERACT-OARSI responder rate.

RESULTS

In the per protocol population, the adjusted mean change from baseline in the WOMAC pain score was -11.1 ( 0.9) with diacerein (n = 140) and -11.8 (0.9) with celecoxib (n = 148). The intergroup difference was 0.7 (95% CI: -1.8, 3.2; P = 0.597), meeting the non-inferiority margin. Supportive analysis of the intention-to-treat population gave similar results. Other outcomes showed no significant difference between treatment groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low and balanced between groups, but a greater incidence of diarrhoea occurred with diacerein (10.2% vs 3.7%). Diarrhoea was considered mild-to-moderate in all but one case with complete resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Diacerein was non-inferior to celecoxib in reducing knee OA pain and improving physical function. Diacerein also demonstrated a good safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

A multicentre study on the effect of DIacerein on Structure and Symptoms vs Celecoxib in Osteoarthritis is a National Institutes of Health (NCT02688400) and European Clinical Trial Database (2015-002933-23) registered phase III (Canada) or IV (Europe) study.

Essential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments

This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

Safety of Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Our aim was to assess the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with COX-2 inhibitors in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs, drug-related AEs and mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once).

Results

Database searches identified 2149 records from which, after exclusions, 40 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of COX-2 inhibitors in OA was associated with a significant increased risk of drug-related AEs compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.09–1.46; I² = 24%). The risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (including dyspepsia, gastritis and heartburn) was significantly increased with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03–1.38; I² = 0%), particularly for abdominal pain, which increased by 40% with COX-2 inhibitors (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; I² = 0%). The risk of hypertension increased by 45% overall (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01–2.10; I² = 25%); however, when rofecoxib was removed from the analysis the risk of hypertension in the COX-2 inhibitor group was no longer significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80–1.83; I² = 20%). The overall risk of heart failure and edema was increased by nearly 70% with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.22–2.31; 0%) and this level of risk did not change appreciably when rofecoxib was excluded (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29; 0%).

Conclusions

In our analysis, COX-2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain. We also found an increased risk of cardiovascular AEs with COX-2 inhibitors, namely hypertension, heart failure and edema.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-019-00664-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome in Sepsis-3: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In the new Sepsis-3 definition, sepsis is defined as "life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection." We tested the predictive validity of the systematic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria in patients in the Sepsis-3 cohort.

METHODS

Among 1243 electronic health records from 1 January to 31 December 2015 at Sichuan University West China Hospital, we identified patients with sepsis and septic shock according to the Sepsis-3 definition and divided them into 2 subsets: SIRS-positive and SIRS-negative. We compared their characteristics and outcomes as well as the predictive validity of the SIRS criteria for in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 1243 patients, 631 were enrolled. Among these, 538 (85.3%) patients had SIRS-positive sepsis or septic shock, 168 (31.2%) of whom died, and 93 (14.7%) had SIRS-negative sepsis or septic shock, 20 (21.5%) of whom died (p = 0.06). Over a 1-year period, these groups had similar characteristics and changes in mortality. Among patients of the Sepsis-3 cohort admitted to the intensive care unit, the predictive validity for in-hospital mortality was lower for the SIRS criteria (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.49-0.57) than for the sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment (SOFA) criteria (AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74; p ≤ 0.01 for both). The SIRS score had poor predictive validity for the risk of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study of the new Sepsis-3 definition, we found that the SIRS criteria are weaker than the SOFA criteria with respect to their predictive efficacy for in-hospital death.

An update of cyclooxygenase (COX)-inhibitors in epilepsy disorders

INTRODUCTION

Neuroinflammation has a critical role in brain disorders. Cyclooxygenase (COX) is one of the principal drug targets for the reduction of neuroinflammation; however, studies have yielded mixed results for COX-inhibitors in the treatment of diverse acute and chronic models of epilepsy.

AREAS COVERED

The article covers the effects of COX-inhibitors in epilepsy disorders. A considerable emphasis has been placed on the antiepileptic and 'disease-modifying' properties of COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitors in various preclinical epilepsy models.

EXPERT OPINION

The effect of COX-inhibitors on epilepsy is inconclusive. Studies have indicated beneficial effects in preclinical models; however, proconvulsant or no effects have also been observed. These molecules may have a bidirectional role with early neuroprotective and delayed neurotoxic effects. Further systematic preclinical studies to establish the use of COX-inhibitors in epilepsy are necessary.

Are All Oral COX-2 Selective Inhibitors the Same? A Consideration of Celecoxib, Etoricoxib, and Diclofenac

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used for the treatment of arthritic conditions. Drugs in this heterogeneous class alleviate pain and inflammation by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition has traditionally been associated with increased gastrointestinal (GI) harm, whereas increased COX-2 selectivity has more recently become associated with greater risk of cardiovascular (CV) harm. When the entirety of data is considered, NSAIDs can be seen to exhibit a range of COX isoform selectivity, with all oral NSAIDs appearing to be associated with an increase in CV events. This review focuses on a comparison of the efficacy and the GI and CV safety profiles of three commonly used NSAIDs-celecoxib, etoricoxib, and diclofenac-using direct comparisons where available. While all three treatments are shown to have comparable efficacy, there are differences in their safety profiles. Both celecoxib and etoricoxib are associated with less GI harm than diclofenac despite the similarity of its COX-2 selectivity to celecoxib. Each of the three medicines under consideration is associated with a similar overall risk of CV events (fatal and nonfatal heart attacks and strokes). However, there are consistent differences in effects on blood pressure (BP), reported both from trials using ambulatory techniques and from meta-analyses of randomized trials, reporting investigator determined effects, with etoricoxib being associated with a greater propensity to destabilize BP control than either diclofenac or celecoxib.

CGRP blockade by galcanezumab was not associated with reductions in signs and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis in a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study tested whether galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody with efficacy against migraine, was superior to placebo for the treatment of mild or moderate osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain.

METHOD

In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and celecoxib-controlled trial, patients with moderate to severe OA pain were randomized to placebo; celecoxib 200 mg daily for 16 weeks; or galcanezumab 5, 50, 120, and 300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks, twice. The primary outcome was change from baseline at Week 8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore measured by 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The trial was considered positive if ≥1 dose of galcanezumab demonstrated ≥95% Bayesian posterior probability of superiority to placebo and ≥50% posterior probability of superiority to placebo by ≥9 mm. A planned interim analysis allowed termination of the study if posterior probability of superiority to placebo by ≥9 mm was ≤5%. Secondary endpoints included WOMAC function subscore and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of OA. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

The study was terminated after interim analysis suggested inadequate efficacy. Celecoxib significantly reduced WOMAC pain subscore compared with placebo [-12.0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -23 to -2 mm]. None of the galcanezumab arms demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement (range: 1.5 to -5.0 mm) or met the prespecified success criteria. No improvement in any secondary objective was observed. Galcanezumab was well tolerated by OA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to demonstrate sufficient statistical evidence that galcanezumab was efficacious for treating OA knee pain.

STUDY IDENTIFICATION

NCT02192190.

Variability in analgesic response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used agents for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. However, it has long been recognized that there is substantial inter-individual variability in the analgesic response to NSAIDs, reflecting the complex interplay between mechanisms of pain, differences between distinct NSAIDs, and patient-specific factors such as genetic variation. This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding how these factors contribute to variability in the analgesic response to NSAIDs.

Defining acute flares in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and critically synthesise definitions of acute flares in knee osteoarthritis (OA) reported in the medical literature.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of science and six other electronic databases (inception to July 2017) for original articles and conference abstracts reporting a definition of acute flare (or synonym) in humans with knee OA. There were no restrictions by language or study design (apart from iatrogenic-induced flare-ups, eg, injection-induced). Data extraction comprised: definition, pain scale used, flare duration or withdrawal period, associated symptoms, definition rationale, terminology (eg, exacerbation or flare), baseline OA severity, age, gender, sample size and study design.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles were included (46 flare design trials, 17 observational studies, 6 other designs; sample sizes: 15-6085). Domains used to define flares included: worsening of signs and symptoms (61 studies, 27 different measurement tools), specifically increased pain intensity; minimum pain threshold at baseline (44 studies); minimum duration (7 studies, range 8-48 hours); speed of onset (2 studies, defined as 'sudden' or 'quick'); requirement for increased medication (2 studies). No definitions included activity interference.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of OA flare appears in the medical literature but most often in the context of flare design trials (pain increases observed after stopping usual treatment). Key domains, used to define acute events in other chronic conditions, appear relevant to OA flare and could provide the basis for consensus on a single, agreed definition of 'naturally occurring' OA flares for research and clinical application.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014010169.

A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Study Demonstrates the Clinical Efficacy of a Novel Herbal Formulation for Relieving Joint Discomfort in Human Subjects with Osteoarthritis of Knee

LI73014F2 is a novel composition prepared from extracts of Terminalia chebula fruit, Curcuma longa rhizome, and Boswellia serrata gum resin with synergistic benefit in 5-Lipoxygenase (5-LOX) inhibition. This herbal composition with strong anti-5-LOX activity exhibited significant pain relief as indicated through improvements in weight-bearing capacity in a monosodium iodoacetate-induced osteoarthritis (OA) model of Sprague-Dawley rats. A 90-day randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study evaluates the clinical efficacy and tolerability of LI73014F2 in the management of symptoms of OA of the knee (Clinical Trial Registration No. CTRI/2014/01/004338). Subjects, (n = 105), were randomized into three groups: placebo (n = 35), 200 mg/day of LI73014F2 (n = 35), and 400 mg/day of LI73014F2 (n = 35). All study participants were evaluated for pain and physical function by using standard tools, that is, Visual Analog Scale, Lequesne's Functional Index, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at the baseline (day 0) and on day 14 ± 3, 30 ± 3, 60 ± 3, and at the end of the study (day 90 ± 3). In addition, routine examinations on biochemical parameters in serum, urine, and hematological parameters were conducted on each visit to assess the safety of the study material. At the end of the trial period, LI73014F2 conferred significant pain relief, improved physical function, and quality of life in OA patients. In conclusion, preclinical and clinical data together strongly suggest that the herbal formulation LI73014F2 is a safe and effective intervention for management of joint discomfort, demonstrating efficacy as early as 14 days.

Etoricoxib improves osteoarthritis pain relief, joint function, and quality of life in the extreme elderly

Etoricoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, with a lower risk of gastrointestinal toxicity compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of etoricoxib in extremely elderly patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis (OA). A prospective, single-center, single-arm study was conducted, enrolling 19 extremely elderly men with OA (mean age 85.9, range 79-96 years), who responded inadequately to NSAIDs or other analgesics. Patients were switched to etoricoxib, 60 mg once daily for 4 weeks, without prior medication washout. Data were recorded before and after etoricoxib treatment. The primary endpoint was improvement in pain, assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) after the 4-week treatment. Other endpoints included the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), Short Form 36 (SF36), and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). Safety and tolerability were assessed by collecting adverse events data. Pain and disability scores measured by WOMAC index were lower after treatment (pain, p ≤ 0.001; disability, p = 0.020). BPI-SF showed a significant improvement in joint function when walking and performing normal work (walking, p = 0.021; normal work, p = 0.030). SF36 scores improved for 7 out of 11 items after etoricoxib treatment (#1, p = 0.032; #4, p = 0.026; #5, p = 0.017; #6, p = 0.008; #7, p = 0.009; #8, p = 0.013; and #10, p = 0.038). EQ-5D showed a significant improvement in visual analogue scale scores (p = 0.036). TSQM results demonstrated a higher patient perception of overall satisfaction. No adverse events were reported. Pain relief, joint function, quality of life, and treatment satisfaction improved significantly in elderly patients with OA after etoricoxib administration.

Gastrointestinal safety of etoricoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

Objective

To ascertain if etoricoxib increases the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events (GAEs) compared with placebo, diclofenac, and naproxen in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Studies were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2017. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that compared etoricoxib with placebo and other active drug for patients with OA or RA and reported data on gastrointestinal safety (which is of interest to patients and clinicians) were included. The follow-up time window for GAEs was defined as within 28 days subsequent to the last dose of study medication. A meta-analysis was conducted using a fixed-effect model. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured.

Results

We found nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that included information on gastrointestinal safety during follow-up time. Among them, five RCTs compared etoricoxib with placebo, four RCTs compared etoricoxib with diclofenac, and three RCTs compared etoricoxib with naproxen. Etoricoxib did not increase the risk of GAEs compared with placebo. Compared with diclofenac and naproxen, etoricoxib reduced the GAE risk (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59–0.76; p < 0.00001; 0.59; 0.48–0.72; < 0.00001) during follow-up time.

Conclusions

In patients with OA or RA, etoricoxib did not increase the GAE risk compared with placebo, but reduced the GAE risk effectively compared with diclofenac and naproxen during follow-up time.

Status of etoricoxib in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Expert panel opinion

Pain is one of the most disabling symptoms of rheumatoid diseases. Patients with pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or gout require effective analgesic treatment, and the physician’s task is to select a drug that is best suited for an individual patient. The choice of pharmacotherapy should be based both on drug potency and clinical efficacy, and its safety profile, particularly in the elderly population, as the number of comorbidities (and hence the risk of treatment complications and drug interactions) rises with age. In cases involving a high risk of gastrointestinal complications or concerns about hepatotoxicity, with a low cardiovascular risk, the first-line nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to consider should be coxibs including etoricoxib.

Fourteen days of etoricoxib 60 mg improves pain, hyperalgesia and physical function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Mounting evidence points to the heterogeneity of osteoarthritis (OA) pain, increasing the need for more comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of standard interventions. This study investigated whether 14 days of the selective Cox-2 inhibitor etoricoxib (60 mg/day) would modify self-report of pain intensity and quality, and physical measures of hyperalgesia and function in individuals with knee OA.

DESIGN

This double-blind placebo-controlled trial included 80 community-recruited volunteers with painful knee OA (≥3/10 VAS), randomly allocated to Active or Placebo groups. Self-report measures of pain, stiffness, function Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and pain quality (PainDETECT, Pain Quality Assessment Scale [PQAS]) and physical measures of locomotion and local (knee) and widespread (elbow) hyperalgesia were assessed at Days 0, 4 and 14. Repeated Measures ANOVA analysed group differences.

RESULTS

Significant group × time interaction effects were found for all measures of pain (all p < 0.001), with WOMAC pain sub-score improving by 30.7% by Day 14 and index knee mechanical hyperalgesia improving by 32.6%, whilst Placebo group values worsened. Both self-report and physical tests of function improved (p < 0.001-p = 0.006): WOMAC-function by 28.4%, sit-to-stand and walk time by 13%, pain during locomotion tasks by 12.4-32.6%. Pain quality also significantly improved for the Active and declined for the Placebo group (p < 0.001): PainDETECT score reduced by 23.6% and PQAS paroxsysmal and surface sub-scores by 36.9% and 29.4%. There were also significant improvements in local cold hyperalgesia and widespread mechanical hyperalgesia (10-13.8%).

CONCLUSION

Just 14 days of etoricoxib significantly improves pain intensity and quality, function and local and widespread hyperalgesia, measured by both self-report and physical tests.

Comparison of effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched trials of analgesics for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

AIMS

To investigate the use of an enriched study design on the estimates of treatment effect in analgesic trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

Database searches were conducted from 2004 to 2014. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating pain medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The estimates of treatment effect on pain and adverse events were compared between enriched and nonenriched designs. Metaregression was used to assess the association between the effect size estimate and the study design controlling for analgesic dose and methodological quality.

RESULTS

We included 108 trials, of which 99 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 44 171). There were no overall differences in effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched designs for pain intensity. There was a significant difference for a reduction in any adverse events favouring enriched designs for opioids, but not for other analgesics or the outcome serious adverse events. There was an association between effect size and methodological quality, with failure to blind the outcome assessor and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis being associated with larger effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that the use of an enriched study design changes the treatment effect size estimate for pain. There is some evidence that clinical trials that employ enriched designs report a reduced risk of adverse events in trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but it is unclear whether enriched designs influence estimates of serious adverse events. Features of trial design and study quality were associated with treatment effect estimates.

Sivelestat sodium hydrate improves post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis through nuclear factor-κB in a rat model

As a specific inhibitor of neutrophil elastase, sivelestat sodium hydrate has primarily been used in the treatment of acute lung injury caused by various factors since its approval in 2002. Sivelestat sodium hydrate also improves post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA), although its underlying mechanisms of action have yet to be elucidated. The aim of the current study was to determine if sivelestat sodium hydrate improves post-traumatic KOA through nuclear factor (NF)-κB in a rat model. Treatment with sivelestat sodium hydrate significantly inhibited the induction of structural changes and significantly increased the vertical episode count and ipsilateral static weight bearing of the joint in KOA rats (all P<0.01). Sivelestat sodium hydrate significantly inhibited tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-6 production, serum nitrite levels, inducible nitric oxide synthase protein expression and high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) secretion in KOA rats compared with the model group (all P<0.01). Sivelestat sodium hydrate also significantly suppressed p50/p65 DNA binding activity and NF-κB and phosphorylated inhibitor of κB protein expression in the joints of KOA rats compared with the model group (all P<0.01). These results suggest that sivelestat sodium hydrate improves post-traumatic KOA through HMGB1 and NF-κB in rats.

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.

Chondroitin sulfate efficacy versus celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis structural changes using magnetic resonance imaging: a 2-year multicentre exploratory study

Background

In osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, although chondroitin sulfate (CS) was found in a number of studies using radiography to have a structure-modifying effect, to date CS use is still under debate. A clinical study using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) is therefore of the utmost importance. Here we report data from a 24-month, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, comparative exploratory study of knee OA. The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of CS 1200 mg/day versus celecoxib 200 mg/day on cartilage volume loss (CVL) in the lateral compartment over time as measured by qMRI. Secondary endpoints included assessment of the OA structural changes and signs and symptoms of OA.

Methods

qMRI was performed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. CVL, bone marrow lesion size, and synovial thickness were evaluated using qMRI. The primary statistical analysis was carried out on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 138) using chi-squared, Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney, and Student’s t tests and analysis of covariance. Analyses were also conducted on the according-to-protocol (ATP; n = 120) population.

Results

In the adjusted mITT analysis, compared with celecoxib treatment, patients treated with CS had a significant reduced CVL at 24 months in the medial compartment (celecoxib –8.1 % ± 4.2, CS –6.3 % ± 3.2; p = 0.018) and medial condyle (–7.7 % ± 4.7, –5.5 % ± 3.9; p = 0.008); no significant effect was seen in the lateral compartment. In the ATP population, CS reduced CVL in the medial compartment at 12 months (celecoxib –5.6 % ± 3.0, CS –4.5 % ± 2.6; p = 0.049) and 24 months (celecoxib –8.4 % ± 4.2, CS –6.6 % ± 3.3; p = 0.021), and in the medial condyle at 24 months (celocoxib –8.1 % ± 4.7, CS –5.7 % ± 4.0; p = 0.010). A trend towards a statistically reduced synovial thickness (celecoxib +17.96 ± 33.73 mm, CS –0.66 ± 22.72 mm; p = 0.076) in the medial suprapatellar bursa was observed in CS patients. Both groups experienced a marked reduction in the incidence of patients with joint swelling/effusion and in symptoms over time. Data showed similar good safety profiles including cardiovascular adverse events for both drugs.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated, for the first time in a 2-year randomised controlled trial using qMRI, the superiority of CS over celecoxib at reducing CVL in knee OA patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01354145. Registered 13 May 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-016-1149-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does flare trial design affect the effect size of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in symptomatic osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

It is thought that the clinical trial benefits of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may relate to flare designs. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in NSAID (including cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors) response in osteoarthritis (OA) trials based on different designs.

METHODS

Systematic review was undertaken of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and the Cochrane library till February 2015. Randomised controlled trials assessing pain, function and/or stiffness following commencement of NSAIDs in flare and non-flare designs were eligible. Trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the effect sizes (ES) of NSAIDs for OA with flare versus non-flare trial designs.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies including 33 263 participants assessing 26 NSAIDs were included. Twenty-two (39%) were flare design, 24 (42%) were non-flare designs, 11 (19%) were possible flare designs. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in ES of NSAIDs versus placebo between flare and non-flare trial designs for absolute pain and function or stiffness at immediate-term (1 week), short-term (2-4 week) or longer-term (12-13 week) follow-up periods (p>0.05). However there was a lower ES for mean change in pain in flare and possible flare trials compared with non-flare trials at short-term follow-up (0.36 vs 0.69; p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous understanding, flare trial designs do not result in an increased treatment effect for NSAIDs in people with OA compared with non-flare design. Whether flare design influences other outcomes such as joint effusion remains unknown.

Impact of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on cardiovascular risk: Is it the same in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis?

Although large-scale population studies have shown that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of myocardial infarction, this is not confirmed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Herein, we review the litterature on the differential effects of NSAIDs on cardiovascular risk in osteoarthritis (OA) versus RA and discuss possible explanations for this discrepancy. To assess a potential additive effect of age in non-RA populations, we compared weighted mean age between RA patients and unselected NSAID users included in cohort and case-control studies that estimate the cardiovascular risk of NSAIDs, assuming that the main indication for NSAID usage in elderly populations is OA. Our hypothesis that advanced age in osteoarthtitis compared to RA patients confounds the effect of NSAIDs on cardiovasular risk was not confirmed. Several other hypotheses that can be proposed to explain this counterintuitive effect of NSAIDs on the cardiovascular risk of RA patients are discussed. We conclude that patients with RA have a lower cardiovascular disease risk associated with the use of NSAIDs, probably due to the nature of their disease per se, until further research indicates differently.

Short-term placebo response in trials of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis: differences between hip and knee

BACKGROUND

In placebo-controlled RCT of symptomatic treatment in osteoarthritis (OA) the extent of pain reduction is heterogeneous, the pooled effect size rather small. Pain reduction is typically higher in knee than in hip trials. The recommended trial duration is 3 months, but in knee OA the best treatment effect vs placebo is observed at 2 weeks. We hypothesized that the placebo response differs in knee vs hip OA.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis to describe the time course of pain in placebo groups of trials in knee and hip OA over 3 months.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar of placebo-controlled cox-2 inhibitor (coxib) RCT (from 1999 to 2007) of hip and knee OA was performed. Pain levels (visual analogue scale [VAS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) in the placebo groups at different measurement time points were extracted, expressed as weighted mean at weeks 2, 4, 6-8 and 12-13.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies included 3064 knee OA patients and 608 hip OA patients. For knee OA, pain (VAS) decreased from 15 mm at week 2, to 20 mm at week 6-8, and 21 mm at week 12-13. For hip OA patients, pain decreased by 12 mm, 14 mm and 14 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pain decreased in both knee and hip OA patients treated with placebo at 2 weeks, but further decreases up to week 12 occurred only in knee OA, especially for pain VAS, resulting in a time dependent impact on the magnitude of treatment outcome. Primary endpoint pain should be assessed at 2-4 weeks.

Comparative pain reduction of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids for knee osteoarthritis: systematic analytic review

OBJECTIVE

Summarize the comparative effectiveness of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in reducing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English between 1982 and 2015, evaluating oral NSAIDs or opioids for knee OA. Included studies were at least 8 weeks duration, conducted in Western Europe, the Americas, New Zealand, or Australia, and reported baseline and follow-up pain using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale (0-100, 100-worst). Effectiveness was evaluated as reduction in pain, accounting for study dropout and heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven treatment arms (nine celecoxib, four non-selective NSAIDs [diclofenac, naproxen, piroxicam], eleven less potent opioids [tramadol], and three potent opioids [hydromorphone, oxycodone]) from 17 studies were included. NSAID and opioid studies reported similar baseline demographics and efficacy withdrawal rates; NSAID studies reported lower baseline pain and toxicity withdrawal rates. Accounting for efficacy-related withdrawals, all drug classes were associated with similar pain reductions (NSAIDs: -18; less potent opioids: -18; potent opioids: -19). Meta-regression did not reveal differential effectiveness by drug class but found that study cohorts with a higher proportion of male subjects and worse mean baseline pain had greater pain reduction. Similarly, results of the network meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in WOMAC Pain reduction for the three analgesic classes.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs and opioids offer similar pain relief in OA patients. These data could help clinicians and patients discuss likely benefits of alternative analgesics.

Efficacy of a new once daily hydromorphone formulation in comparison with twice daily administration in chronic pain: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study

Objective Efficacy and safety of a novel multiple-unit hydromorphone once daily (HOD) was compared to an established hydromorphone twice daily (HTD) regimen in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain. Design and methods The results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over trial in patients (n = 37) with chronic malignant or non-malignant pain are reported. The primary efficacy parameter was current pain on 0-100 mm VAS assessed four times daily and prior to intake of rescue medication (immediate-release hydromorphone) throughout the last 5 days with each treatment (after an 8 day build-up period to avoid carry-over effects). Total daily dose of hydromorphone (TDD: 8-32 mg/day) was kept stable during the double-blind treatment phase. Results The difference observed in mean current pain (-0.92 mm VAS) over the 5 day assessment period between HOD and HTD (28.44 mm vs. 29.36 mm VAS) was found to lack clinical relevance, as the 95% CI (-4.10 to 2.28 mm VAS) did not exceed the prespecified limit for non-inferiority of 9 mm VAS. Results from the full analysis set were consistent with per protocol data confirming robustness, as did the data for 12 h recalled pain assessed at 08:00 h and 20:00 h, showing no significant differences between once and twice daily medication. Both treatments produced effective and stable pain control with only minor day-to-day and intra-day fluctuations. Switching between treatments was suitable, considering both efficacy and safety, as no relevant or significant differences in adverse events were seen (25.0% HOD, 24.3% HTD). Most frequently typical side-effects of opioid therapy were observed, such as nausea, vomiting and headache. Conclusion Although this study was of short duration and included a limited number of patients, the results confirm that the new HOD is as effective and safe as the established HTD.

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib Therapy in Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis in older individuals and is among the most prevalent and disabling chronic conditions worldwide.We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Studies were pooled, and mean difference (MD), relative risk (RR), and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Fifteen relevant articles were included for this meta-analysis study.We observed that osteoarthritis total score (MD = -4.41, 95% CI -7.27 to -1.55), pain subscale score (MD = -0.86, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.62), and function subscale score (MD = -2.90, 95% CI -5.12 to -0.67) in OA patients treatment with celecoxib was significantly improved than that with placebo. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs), SAEs, and discontinuations due to AEs; however, the incidence of gastrointestinal AEs in OA patients treatment with celecoxib is significantly higher than that with placebo. For AE, the incidence of abdominal pain in OA patients with celecoxib was significantly higher than that with placebo (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.40-3.58; P = 0.839, I = 0%). There was no significant difference in diarrhea, dyspepsia, headache, and nausea.This meta-analysis indicated that celecoxib treatment (200 mg orally once daily) led to significant improvement in the pain and function of osteoarthritis. However, compared with placebo control, celecoxib resulted in greater gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain after approximately 10 to 13 weeks of treatment. The current study, therefore, provides valuable information to help physicians make treatment decisions for their patients with OA.

Comparison of benefit-risk preferences of patients and physicians regarding cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors using discrete choice experiments

PURPOSE

To elucidate and compare benefit-risk preferences among Korean patients and physicians concerning cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) inhibitor treatments for arthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects included 100 patients with arthritis and 60 board-certified orthopedic surgeon physicians in South Korea. Through a systematic review of the literature, beneficial attributes of using Cox-2 inhibitors were defined as a decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index for pain score and improvement in physical function. Likewise, risk attributes included upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications and cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Discrete choice experiments were used to determine preferences for these four attributes among Korean patients and physicians. Relative importance and maximum acceptable risk for improving beneficial attributes were assessed by analyzing the results of the discrete choice experiment by using a conditional logit model.

RESULTS

Patients ranked the relative importance of benefit-risk attributes as follows: pain reduction (35.2%); physical function improvement (30.0%); fewer CV adverse events (21.5%); fewer GI complications (13.4%). The physicians' ranking for the same attributes was as follows: fewer CV (33.5%); pain reduction (32.4%); fewer GI complications (18.1%); physical function improvement (16.0%). Patients were more willing than physicians to accept risks when pain improved from 20% or 45% to 55% and physical function improved from 15% or 35% to 45%.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that patients and physicians had different benefit-risk preferences regarding Cox-2 inhibitors. Patients with arthritis prioritized the benefits of Cox-2 inhibitors over the risks; moreover, in comparison with the physicians, arthritis patients were more willing to accept the trade-off between benefits and risks to achieve the best treatment level. To reduce the preference gap and achieve treatment goals, physicians must better understand their patients' preferences.

Combined chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine for painful knee osteoarthritis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial versus celecoxib

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.

METHODS

Double-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ≥301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01425853.

Effectiveness and Implications of Alternative Placebo Treatments: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Osteoarthritis Trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo controls are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments. Although it is unclear whether different placebo interventions for osteoarthritis vary in efficacy, systematic differences would substantially affect interpretation of the results of placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of alternative placebo types on pain outcomes in knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database from inception through 1 June 2015 and unpublished data.

STUDY SELECTION

149 randomized trials of adults with knee osteoarthritis that reported pain outcomes and compared widely used pharmaceuticals against oral, intra-articular, topical, and oral plus topical placebos.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study data were independently double-extracted; study quality was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Placebo effects that were evaluated by using a network meta-analysis with 4 separate placebo nodes (differential model) showed that intra-articular placebo (effect size, 0.29 [95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.49]) and topical placebo (effect size, 0.20 [credible interval, 0.02 to 0.38]) had significantly greater effect sizes than did oral placebo. This differential model showed marked differences in the relative efficacies and hierarchy of the active treatments compared with a network model that considered all placebos equivalent. In the model accounting for differential effects, intra-articular and topical therapies were superior to oral treatments in reducing pain. When these differential effects were ignored, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were superior.

LIMITATIONS

Few studies compared different placebos directly. The study could not decisively conclude whether disease severity and co-interventions systematically differed between trials evaluating different placebos.

CONCLUSION

All placebos are not equal, and some can trigger clinically relevant responses. Differential placebo effects can substantially alter estimates of the relative efficacies of active treatments, an important consideration for the design of clinical trials and interpretation of their results.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Epidemiology research in rheumatology-progress and pitfalls

Epidemiology research is a vital component of clinical studies in all medical fields. This Review provides a brief introduction to the methodology and interpretation of population and clinical epidemiology studies of musculoskeletal disorders. Data sources (including 'big data' and the issue of missing data), study design (cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies, including clinical trial design) and the interpretation of study results are discussed with examples from the field of rheumatology, particularly using findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Two or more treatments can be compared in clinical trials using a variety of study designs including superiority, noninferiority or equivalence. The different types of risk in epidemiological studies-absolute, attributable, background and relative-are important concepts in epidemiological research and their relative usefulness to clinicians and patients should be considered carefully. The potential pitfalls and challenges of generalizing the results of epidemiological studies to understanding disease aetiology and to clinical practice are also emphasized. The aim of the Review is to help readers to critically appraise published articles that use epidemiological designs or methods.

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.

Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and associated factors among the Chinese population in Taian, China

Background

This study was designed to assess the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and associated risk factors among the Chinese population in Taian, China.

Methods

A primary care-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Taian, China, from September to December 2012. Participants selected by a multi-stage stratified cluster sampling procedure were interviewed and tested for hematuria, albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and other clinical indices. Factors associated with CKD were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 14,399 subjects were enrolled in this study. The rates of hematuria, albuminuria and reduced eGFR were 4.20%, 5.25% and 1.89%, respectively. Approximately 9.49% (95% CI: 8.93%–10.85%) of the participants had at least one indicator of CKD, with an awareness of 1.4%. Univariate analyses showed that greater age, body mass index, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure; higher levels of serum creatinine, uric acid, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; and lower eGFR were associated with CKD (p < 0.05 each). Multivariate analysis showed that age, female gender, educational level, smoking habits, systolic blood pressure, and history of diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, hypercholesterolemia and hyperuricemia were independent risk factors for CKD.

Conclusions

The prevalence of CKD in the primary care population of Taian, China, is high, although awareness is quite low. Health education and policies to prevent CKD are urgently needed among this population.

Etoricoxib in the treatment of Korean patients with osteoarthritis in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the COX-2 inhibitors, etoricoxib and celecoxib, in Korean patients with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

This study included patients (≥ 40 years of age) with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of knee OA. Patients were randomized to etoricoxib 30 mg (qd) or celecoxib 200 mg (qd) in a 12 week randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Prior NSAID users were to demonstrate a worsening of symptoms upon withdrawal of medication. Efficacy endpoints included the time-weighted average change from baseline in the WOMAC VA 3.0 Pain Subscale (100 mm Visual Analog Scale [VAS]; primary endpoint), the WOMAC VA 3.0 Physical Function Subscale (100 mm VAS), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status (PGAD) (100 mm VAS). The primary hypothesis was that etoricoxib 30 mg is non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg as assessed by the primary endpoint (the non-inferiority margin was set at 10 mm VAS). Adverse events (AEs), laboratory parameters, and vital signs were monitored.

RESULTS

There were 239 patients (89.5% female; mean age: 63.3 years) randomized to etoricoxib 30 mg (n = 120) and celecoxib 200 mg (n = 119). The differences (etoricoxib vs celecoxib) in least square (LS) mean change (95% CI) for WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and PGAD were -1.63 mm (-5.37, 2.10), -1.32 mm (-4.88, 2.23), and -1.09 mm (-5.48, 3.30), respectively. Drug-related clinical AEs occurred in 6.7% (etoricoxib) and 2.5% (celecoxib) of patients. This study was limited because it was not designed or powered to adequately capture and evaluate rare AEs associated with NSAID treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Etoricoxib 30 mg administered once daily in Korean patients with knee OA demonstrated non-inferior clinical efficacy to celecoxib 200 mg over 12 weeks of treatment as assessed by all primary and secondary outcomes. Etoricoxib 30 mg qd and celecoxib 200 mg qd were generally safe and well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01554163.

Clinical evaluation of the first oxycodone once daily prolonged release tablet in moderate to severe chronic pain: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over, non-inferiority study to investigate efficacy and safety in comparison with an established oxycodone twice daily prolonged release tablet

OBJECTIVE

The first oxycodone once daily (OOD) has been developed and after successful pharmacokinetic characterization, therapeutic efficacy and safety were compared to an established oxycodone twice daily (OTD: Oxygesic/OxyContin, Mundipharma).

DESIGN AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, cross-over, non-inferiority study was conducted in patients (n = 68) with chronic malignant or non-malignant pain. The new OOD was compared to OTD at identical total daily doses (TDD: 40-120 mg/day) employing intensive, five times daily current pain (0-100 mm visual analog scale, VAS) and twice daily 12 h recalled pain assessments as well as safety parameters such as nausea and sedation (VAS) over 5 days for each treatment (after a 5 day run-in phase).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in analgesic potency detected between the two treatments based on 95% CI for difference in the daily mean current pain (-2.09 mm VAS) over 5 days, determined as -5.09 to 0.91 mm VAS. A difference ≤12 mm VAS indicated non-inferiority of OOD, i.e. lack of clinically relevant difference in analgesia. Intake of rescue medication had no effect on study results as evaluated by ANCOVA. The difference in adverse events (AEs) between the two treatments did not reach significance, as 19.1% and 23.5% of patients experienced treatment-related AEs while on OOD and OTD, respectively. Advantages for OOD regarding consistency of analgesia (i.e. use of rescue medication, current and recalled pain) and sedation did not reach statistical significance in this limited study population.

CONCLUSION

Despite the small number of patients and short study duration, the results support the conclusion that new OOD is (at least) equivalent to established OTD regarding safety and efficacy.

Comparative evaluation of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis on recommended doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We conducted an analysis to explore whether the cardiovascular outcomes associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), when used in licensed doses by patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, was class or compound dependent.

METHODS

Using the Ovid technology search engine, we conducted a search of the literature for relevant studies published between 1995 and 2011. We also retrieved further studies following manual searches. The primary endpoint was major vascular events and the secondary endpoints were stroke, hypertension and congestive heart failure. A total of 19 studies were analysed. Studies conducted in the osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis patients' population that reported on cardiovascular events were included in the analysis. The analysis was conducted using the software Review Manager 5.1 and Cochrane methodology.

RESULTS

Using the primary endpoint of major vascular events (MVE) and a prespecified cutoff point of 1.30, diclofenac (versus 1 comparator) and rofecoxib (versus 2 comparators) had increased risk for MVE [odds ratio (OR) >1.30]. Using the same criteria, diclofenac (versus 1 comparator) had an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI). Although celecoxib had a slightly increased risk for MI (OR 1.33, versus 1 comparator), the confidence interval included 1 and was not significant. For the secondary endpoints, etoricoxib and rofecoxib were significantly worse off for HT (versus 1 comparator each) and naproxen was significantly worse off for stroke (versus 1 comparator). Although ibuprofen was worse off for HT (versus 1 comparator) the increased risk was not significant.

CONCLUSION

From the analysis conducted, it appears that the risk for cardiovascular events in arthritis patients on licensed doses of NSAIDs varies considerably and is likely to depend on the individual compound.

The efficacy of duloxetine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids in osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ≥12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparative study on the safety and efficacy of Celecoxib and GCSB-5, dried extracts of six herbs, for the treatment of osteoarthritis of knee joint

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of Celecoxib and GCSB-5, a new product from extracts of six herbs, for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 198 eligible patients were randomly assigned to the Celecoxib group (n=99 patients) or the GCSB-5 group (n=99 patients) for the 12-week study. The amount of change and percentage of the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Arthritis Index from the baseline, the change in pain on walking by visual analogue scale (VAS), physician's global assessment on response to therapy (PGART) by five point Likert scale, and the amount of rescue medicine taken were used as parameters for efficacy. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were carefully investigated.

RESULTS

The WOMAC score improved in both the Celecoxib group and GCSB-5 group by 20.5 and 21.3 (P=0.79). The percentage of the change in WOMAC score were -42.0% and -38.9% (P=0.54). The pain VAS score decreased by 29.9 and 27.9 (P=0.58). The responders by PGART were 95.3% and 93.8% (P= 0.66), and the median amount of rescue medicine taken were 2.0 and 6.5 tablets (P=0.06). The incidence of ADRs were 31.3% and 21.2% (P=0.11). The most common ADRs were gastrointestinal system related; 17.2% in GCSB-5 group and 22.2% in Celecoxib group. Any severe ADR was not observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The result of this study supports that GCSB-5 is comparable to Celecoxib in terms of the efficacy and safety for the treatment of osteoarthritis of knee joint.

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.