A prospective randomised multicentre study comparing continuous and intermittent treatment with celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

Effects of individual shock wave therapy vs celecoxib on hip pain caused by femoral head necrosis

BACKGROUND

Celecoxib has been used to treat hip discomfort and functional difficulties associated with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), although significant adverse reactions often follow long-term use. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) can delay the progression of ONFH, alleviate the pain and functional limitations it causes, and avoid the adverse effects of celecoxib.

AIM

To investigate the effects of individual ESWT, a treatment alternative to the use of celecoxib, in alleviating pain and dysfunction caused by ONFH.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, non-inferiority trial. We examined 80 patients for eligibility in this study; 8 patients were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 72 subjects with ONFH were randomly assigned to group A (n = 36; celecoxib + alendronate + sham-placebo shock wave) or group B (n = 36; individual focused shock wave [ESWT based on magnetic resonance imaging three-dimensional (MRI-3D) reconstruction] + alendronate). The outcomes were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment, and at an 8-wk follow-up. The primary outcome measure was treatment efficiency after 2 wk of intervention using the Harris hip score (HHS) (improvement of 10 points or more from the baseline was deemed sufficient). Secondary outcome measures were post-treatment HHS, visual analog scale (VAS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores.

RESULTS

After treatment, the pain treatment efficiency of group B was greater than that of group A (69% vs 51%; 95%CI: 4.56% to 40.56%), with non-inferiority thresholds of -4.56% and -10%, respectively. Furthermore, the HHS, WOMAC, and VAS scores in group B dramatically improved during the follow-up period as compared to those in group A (P < 0.001). After therapy, the VAS and WOMAC in group A were significantly improved from the 2^nd to 8^th wk (P < 0.001), although HHS was only significantly altered at the 2 wk point (P < 0.001). On the 1^st d and 2^nd wk after treatment, HHS and VAS scores were different between groups, with the difference in HHS lasting until week 4. Neither group had severe complications such as skin ulcer infection or lower limb motor-sensory disturbance.

CONCLUSION

Individual shock wave therapy (ESWT) based on MRI-3D reconstruction was not inferior to celecoxib in managing hip pain and restrictions associated with ONFH.

Oral Transmucosal Cannabidiol Oil Formulation as Part of a Multimodal Analgesic Regimen: Effects on Pain Relief and Quality of Life Improvement in Dogs Affected by Spontaneous Osteoarthritis

Simple Summary

Osteoarthritis is a progressive and degenerative condition that affects dog populations, causing pain. The pain associated with osteoarthritis is considered to be chronic, owing to both active inflammation and to a maladaptive component caused by central sensitization. Chronic pain in dogs is being increasingly recognised as a significant problem, and finding successful treatments against canine osteoarthritis-related pain is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy in pain management over a twelve-week period of oral transmucosal cannabidiol, in combination with a multimodal pharmacological protocol, in dogs affected by spontaneous osteoarthritis. Dogs receiving oral transmucosal cannabidiol in addition to an anti-inflammatory drug, gabapentin and amitriptyline showed a meaningful improvement in Canine Brief Pain Inventory scores, in comparison with dogs that did not receive cannabidiol. The present study suggests that the addition of oral transmucosal cannabidiol to a multimodal pharmacological treatment for canine osteoarthritis improves owner reported pain scores and quality of life of dogs, without severe adverse effects.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of oral transmucosal (OTM) cannabidiol (CBD), in addition to a multimodal pharmacological treatment for chronic osteoarthritis-related pain in dogs. Twenty-one dogs were randomly divided into two groups: in group CBD (n = 9), OTM CBD (2 mg kg⁻¹ every 12 h) was included in the therapeutic protocol (anti-inflammatory drug, gabapentin, amitriptyline), while in group C (n = 12), CBD was not administered. Dogs were evaluated by owners based on the Canine Brief Pain Inventory scoring system before treatment initiation (T0), and one (T1), two (T2), four (T3) and twelve (T4) weeks thereafter. Pain Severity Score was significantly lower in CBD than in C group at T1 (p = 0.0002), T2 (p = 0.0043) and T3 (p = 0.016). Pain Interference Score was significantly lower in CBD than in C group at T1 (p = 0.0002), T2 (p = 0.0007) and T4 (p = 0.004). Quality of Life Index was significantly higher in CBD group at T1 (p = 0.003). The addition of OTM CBD showed promising results. Further pharmacokinetics and long-term studies in larger populations are needed to encourage its inclusion into a multimodal pharmacological approach for canine osteoarthritis-related pain.

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.

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.

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.

Managing osteoarthritis

Management of osteoarthritis should be based on a combination of non-drug and drug treatments targeted towards prevention, modifying risk and disease progression. Obesity is the most important modifiable risk factor, so losing weight in addition to land- and water-based exercise and strength training is important. While paracetamol can be tried, guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line treatment for osteoarthritis. If there are concerns about the adverse effects of oral treatment, particularly in older patients or those with comorbidities, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be used. Glucosamine does not appear to be any better than placebo for pain. Its effect on the structural progression of disease when taken alone or in combination with chondroitin is uncertain. Fish oil has not been found to reduce the structural progression of knee arthritis. Surgical interventions should be avoided in the first instance, with arthroscopic procedures not showing benefit over sham procedures or optimised physical and medical therapy. Joint replacement surgery should be considered for severe osteoarthritis.

Mavacoxib and meloxicam for canine osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical comparator trial

NSAIDs are the cornerstone of medical management of canine osteoarthritis (OA). Meloxicam is a daily-administered NSAID widely available in a liquid formulation and manufacturer's summary of product characteristics (SPC) advise that it is given at the lowest effective dose. Mavacoxib is a long-acting NSAID given as a monthly tablet. This study compares these drugs in the management of canine OA. In all, 111 dogs with OA of the elbow, hip or stifle were randomly assigned to receive one of these NSAIDs for a 12-week period, and to administer them as per the manufacturer's SPC. Outcomes, including ground reaction forces and three validated clinical metrology instruments, were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Improvements were seen in all outcome measures for both groups to a similar degree, and adverse events occurred at a similar rate. There were significant improvements in outcome measures from week 6 to week 12, as well as from baseline. Long-term meloxicam dose was more important than recent dose. Clinical efficacy and adverse event rates are similar for meloxicam and mavacoxib when administered as per their UK SPC. This is relevant information for veterinary surgeons when prescribing NSAID treatment for canine OA.

The effects of two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the mobility of laying hens with keel bone fractures

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the effects of administration of meloxicam and carprofen on the mobility of hens with and without keel fractures.

STUDY DESIGN

Within each of two experiments a 'blinded' randomised cross over design whereby birds received either the test drug (carprofen or meloxicam) or saline.

ANIMALS

Two groups of Lohman Brown hens with and without keel bone fractures.

METHODS

The first group (n = 63) was treated with carprofen 25 mg kg(-1) and saline subcutaneously, twice. The second group (n = 40) was treated with meloxicam (5 mg kg(-1) ) and saline subcutaneously. The latency of birds to fly down from perches 50, 100 and 150 cm above the ground was measured after each treatment. Data from experiment 1 and 2 were analysed separately; the effects of drug treatment compared with saline on landing time for birds with and without keel bone fractures were evaluated using MLwiN.

RESULTS

In both experiments latency to fly down from perches was longer in hens with keel fractures and there was a significant interaction between perch height and fracture status. For carprofen, at the 50 cm, 100 cm and 150 cm perch heights, birds with fractures took (mean ± SD) 2.5 ± 2.9, 6.8 ± 9.7 and 11.5 ± 13.2 seconds respectively to fly down compared with 1.3 ± 0.5, 2.3 ± 1.2 and 4.2 ± 3.1 seconds for birds without fractures. For meloxicam, at the 50 cm, 100 cm and 150 cm perch heights, birds with fractures took 2.9 ± 2.5, 49.8 ± 85.4 and 100.3 ± 123.6 seconds respectively compared with 0.7 ± 0.5, 2.5 ± 7.1 and 3.0 ± 4.6 seconds to fly down for birds without fractures. There was no significant effect of carprofen or meloxicam treatment.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These data provide further confirmation that keel fractures reduce the willingness of birds to move from perches.

Should non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs be used continuously in ankylosing spondylitis?

OBJECTIVE

The 2010 update of ASAS/EULAR recommendations for managing ankylosing spondylitis (AS) specify that continuous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment should be preferred in patients with persistently active, symptomatic disease. Here, our objective was to assess whether continuous NSAID therapy improves disease control and influences radiographic progression compared to on-demand therapy. We also assessed the safety profiles of both regimens.

METHODS

We performed a review by searching the PubMed and Embase databases using two MeSH term combinations to compare continuous and on-demand NSAID therapy in terms of disease control, radiographic progression, and safety.

RESULTS

The only study evaluating the impact of continuous NSAID therapy on disease control showed no significant difference with on-demand therapy. In four studies, continuous treatment was associated with slower radiographic progression, as assessed in three studies using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (m-SASSS). Three studies compared the safety of continuous and on-demand celecoxib, two in osteoarthritis and one in AS, and found no significant differences regarding the usual side effects of Cox-2 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Several studies showed slower radiographic progression with continuous NSAID therapy in AS. No studies demonstrated superiority of continuous NSAID therapy regarding symptom control. Continuous NSAID therapy (at least with Cox-2 inhibitors) does not modify safety compared to on-demand therapy.

Safe prescription recommendations for non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: consensus document ellaborated by nominated experts of three scientific associations (SER-SEC-AEG)

This article outlines key recommendations for the appropriate prescription of non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to patients with different musculoskeletal problems. These recommendations are based on current scientific evidence, and takes into consideration gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety issues. The recommendations have been agreed on by experts from three scientific societies (Spanish Society of Rheumatology [SER], Spanish Association of Gastroenterology [AEG] and Spanish Society of Cardiology [SEC]), following a two-round Delphi methodology. Areas that have been taken into account encompass: efficiency, cardiovascular risk, gastrointestinal risk, liver risk, renal risk, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, post-operative pain, and prevention strategies. We propose a patient management algorithm that summarizes the main aspects of the recommendations.

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.

Treatment of Osteoarthritis with Continuous Versus Intermittent Celecoxib

Objective.

To determine whether “continuous” celecoxib is more efficacious than “intermittent” use in preventing osteoarthritis (OA) flares of the knee and/or hip.

Methods.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter international study comparing efficacy and safety of continuous (daily) versus intermittent (as required during predefined OA flare) celecoxib 200 mg/day in 858 subjects, aged 18–80 years. The study consisted of 3 periods: (I) screening/washout visit; (II) open-label run-in with celecoxib; and (III) 22-week blinded treatment. Only subjects whose OA flares resolved in Period 2 (without subsequent flare) were randomized. The primary endpoint, number of flares per time of exposure during Period III (number of flares per month), was compared using analysis of variance with treatment as the independent variable. Acetaminophen was available as rescue medication.

Results.

Of 875 subjects randomized to treatment, 858 subjects received treatment. At randomization > 70% were female; mean age 58.6 years; mean disease duration 6.5 years; total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index mean score 25.8; ∼45% had hypertension; and ∼20% were using aspirin (for cardiovascular prophylaxis). Subjects receiving continuous treatment reported 42% fewer OA flares/month than intermittent users (p < 0.0001) or 2.0 fewer OA flares over 22 weeks. Statistical and clinically meaningful benefits in secondary outcomes were also evident with continuous treatment. There were no differences in adverse events (AE) or new-onset/aggravated hypertension.

Conclusion.

Continuous treatment with celecoxib 200 mg/day was significantly more efficacious than intermittent use in preventing OA flares of the hip and knee, without an increase in overall AE, including gastrointestinal disorders and hypertension, during 22 weeks of treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00139776.

Review of the safety and efficacy of long-term NSAID use in the treatment of canine osteoarthritis

The published, peer-reviewed literature was systematically searched for information on the safety and efficacy of long-term (defined as 28 days or more of continuous therapy) NSAID use in the treatment of canine osteoarthritis. Online databases were reviewed in June 2008 and papers were selected based on their relevance. Fifteen papers were identified and evaluated. Six of seven papers indicated a benefit of long-term treatment over short-term treatment in terms of the reduction of clinical signs or lameness; one study showed no benefit. Fourteen papers evaluated safety with calculated experimental (adverse) event rates (EER) between 0 and 0.31, but there was no correlation between study length and EER (rs=-0.109, P=0.793). The balance of evidence for the efficacy of NSAIDs supports longer-term use of these agents for increased clinical effect. There is no indication in the literature that such an approach is associated with a reduction in safety, although robust data on the safety of long-term NSAID use are lacking in large numbers of dogs.

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in the Treatment of Acute Pain due to Ankle Sprain in a Latin American and Middle Eastern Population

Ankle sprains are common acute soft-tissue injuries. This 7-day open-label, multicentre, randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of celecoxib with non-selective non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating acute ankle sprain with moderate-to-severe ankle pain in 278 patients. Patients received either celecoxib (400 mg loading dose followed by 200 mg twice daily) or standard doses of non-selective NSAIDs. The primary endpoint was a change in the patient's assessment of ankle pain on a 0 mm (no pain) −100 mm (worst possible pain) visual analogue scale (VAS) at day 3 compared with baseline. From a baseline of 73 mm, mean VAS pain scores decreased to 29 and 32 mm in the celecoxib and non-selective NSAID groups, respectively. The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference with regard to change from baseline was greater than the pre-established non-inferiority margin of −10 mm. Using an initial loading dose, celecoxib was at least as efficacious as non-selective NSAIDs in treating acute pain due to ankle sprain.

A randomized, controlled clinical trial of ketoprofen for sickle-cell disease vaso-occlusive crises in adults

Vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) is the primary cause of hospitalization of patients with sickle-cell disease. Treatment mainly consists of intravenous morphine, which has many dose-related side effects. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs have been proposed to provide pain relief and decrease the need for opioids. Nevertheless, only a few underpowered trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for sickle-cell VOC have been conducted, and conflicting results were reported. We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with ketoprofen (300 mg/day for 5 days), a nonselective cyclooxygenase inhibitor, for severe VOC in adults. A total of 66 VOC episodes were included. The primary efficacy outcome was VOC duration. The secondary end points were morphine consumption, pain relief, and treatment failure. Seven VOC episodes in each group were excluded from the analysis because of treatment failures. No significant between-group differences were observed for the primary outcome or the secondary end points. Thus, although ketoprofen was well-tolerated, it had no significant efficacy as treatment of VOC requiring hospitalization. These findings argue against its systematic use in this setting.

[Arthrosis update]

Arthrosis deformans is a common disease worldwide with a high prevalence among all ethnic groups. All joints may be affected and genetic factors influence the onset of the disease. The main symptoms include pain and increasing immobility over the course of the illness. Treatment in early stages is conservative. In the final stages of disease the implantation of an endoprosthesis, as well as bracing depending on the joint in question, are possible. Complete healing of the disease is not possible to date; however, medicamentous or genetic-therapy approaches are currently the subject of intensive research.

Clinical use and pharmacological properties of selective COX-2 inhibitors

Selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) are approved for the relief of acute pain and symptoms of chronic inflammatory conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They have similar pharmacological properties but a slightly improved gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile if compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). However, long-term use of coxibs can be associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) adverse events (AEs). For this reason, two coxibs were withdrawn from the market. Currently celecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib are used. These three coxibs differ in their chemical structure and selectivity for COX-2, which might explain some of their pharmacological features. Following oral administration, the less lipophilic celecoxib has a lower bioavailability (20-40%) than the other two coxibs (74-100%). All are eliminated by hepatic metabolism involving mainly CYP2C9 (celecoxib, lumiracoxib) and CYP3A4 (etoricoxib). Elimination half-life varies from 5 to 8 h (lumiracoxib), 11 to 16 h (celecoxib) and 19 to 32 h (etoricoxib). In patients with liver disease, plasma levels of celecoxib and etoricoxib are increased about two-fold. Clinical efficacies of the coxibs are comparable to tNSAIDs. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the slightly better GI tolerability (which is lost if acetylsalicylic acid is coadministered) of the coxibs is offset by their elevated risks for CV AEs (also seen with tNSAIDs other than naproxen), which apparently increase with dose and duration of exposure. In addition, the higher costs for coxibs (if compared to tNSAIDs, even when a "gastroprotective" proton pump inhibitor is coadministered) should be taken into consideration, if a coxib will be selected for certain patients with a high risk for GI complications. For such treatment, the lowest effective dose should be used for a limited time. Monitoring of kidney function and blood pressure appears advisable. It is hoped that further controlled studies can better define the therapeutic place of the coxibs.