Methodology of a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint streamlined safety study of celecoxib versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of the standard care versus celecoxib outcome trial (SCOT)

Low Frequency of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Despite Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Corticosteroids in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease. It has been identified that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids can be essential risk factors for developing complications such as upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the safety profile of drugs used to treat RA focused in UGIB.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of patients with RA between 2015 and 2021, a description of the population, and an evaluation of the relationship with UGIB through bivariate analysis and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 405 individuals, 16 presented UGIB (93.8% women, mean age was 65±13.6 years). No statistically significant differences were found regarding UGIB and medication use, except for the mean dose of corticosteroids. In the multivariate analysis, it was found that the presence of anemia in the last three months had an adjusted OR (AOR) of 16.1 (95% CI 2.74- 24.23) and higher HAQ values during the previous three months had an AOR of 6.17 (95% CI 1.79- 21.24).

CONCLUSION

This study found a low frequency of UGIB in patients with RA. More significant disability and anemia in the previous months were independently associated with UGIB. The low frequency of NSAID use in this population is noteworthy. In general, reasonable medication use related to this complication is recommended.

Validation of the GetReal Trial Tool - Facilitating discussion and understanding more pragmatic design choices and their implications

BACKGROUND

The GetReal Trial Tool is a decision support tool to assess the impact of design choices on generalizability of clinical trials to routine clinical practice, while taking into account the risk of bias, precision, acceptability and operational feasibility. This study describes the validation of the GetReal Trial Tool.

METHODS

Twelve experts took part in the GetReal Trial tool validation using the protocols of 6 trials conducted with pragmatic elements. The tool entails 7 domains with a total of 43 questions. A pooled Kappa statistic (95% CI) using random effects model was estimated using Open Meta (analyst) software. The possible operational challenges were collated and discussed with the trialists that conducted the trials.

RESULTS

Agreement in the design choices made for the trial protocols was >50% for all the trials and all teams reached consensus during discussion. The pooled Kappa statistic (95% CI) was 0.236 (0.154-0.318). The GetReal Trial tool highlighted several operational challenges, of which almost half had been experienced previously by the trialists. Out of 25 additional operational challenges mentioned by the trialists, 76% were already highlighted by the tool. The tool was considered helpful to optimize trials right from the design stage.

CONCLUSION

The GetReal Trial Tool helps to scrutinize the choice of study design in the light of Real World Evidence generation. The tool identifies most of the operational challenges experienced by trialists to date. The tool serves the intended purpose of facilitating discussion and understanding more pragmatic design choices and their implications.

Pharmacoepidemiology

At the time of their marketing authorization, the effects of drugs and especially their efficacy have been mostly studied in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT), comparing them to placebo or to existing drugs. However, RCT are by nature limited in their extent, and the often stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria destined to provide for homogeneous study populations reduce the generalizability of RCT results.The post-authorization evaluation of drugs (pharmacoepidemiology or real-world evidence (RWE)) covers the description of drug utilization and population risks or benefits of these drugs after they have been marketed and provided to their target populations. Though field studies have existed for a long time, modern pharmacoepidemiology has been made possible essentially by the emergence of large population databases compiled from claims data or electronic health records. The methods can be exposure or disease-based cohorts or event-driven case-based studies, tailored to the specific questions to be answered. They rely on scrupulous analysis and execution of impeccable methodology, to ensure the most reliable results possible.Pharmacoepidemiology requires knowledge of the pharmacology of drugs, of the clinical aspects of diseases and disease management, and of the epidemiological methods that can apply.

Cyclooxygenase Inhibition: Pain, Inflammation, and the Cardiovascular System

Inhibitors of the cyclooxygenases (COXs), the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), relieve inflammatory pain, but are associated with gastrointestinal and cardiovascular complications. Given the widespread use of NSAIDs, there has been a longstanding interest in optimizing their risk-benefit ratio, for example by reducing their gastrointestinal risk. More recently, the focus has shifted toward the cardiovascular complications of NSAIDs and very large prospective studies have been performed to compare cardiovascular risk across distinct NSAIDs. Surprisingly, much less attention has been paid to the efficacy side of the risk-benefit ratio. There is marked variability in the degree of pain relief by NSAIDs due to the complex interplay of molecular mechanisms contributing to the pain sensation, variability in the disposition of NSAIDs, and imprecision in the quantification of human pain. Here we discuss how NSAIDs relieve pain, how molecular mechanisms relate to clinical efficacy, and how this may inform our interpretation of clinical trials.

Evaluating the Cardiovascular Safety of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Some drugs used to treat noncardiovascular conditions may adversely impact the cardiovascular status of individuals both with and without known cardiovascular disease. When the US Food and Drug Administration judges the potential cardiovascular safety signal to be of sufficient concern, it may require the pharmaceutical manufacturer of the drug in question to conduct a postmarketing (phase 4) randomized controlled trial (RCT). Although historically many phase 4 RCTs focused on efficacy (using a superiority design), contemporary phase 4 RCTs often are focused on safety and use a noninferiority design. The choices made by investigators during the planning stage of a postmarketing phase 4 RCT dedicated to the evaluation of cardiovascular safety can influence the ability to compare the standard and test agents. Multiple factors reflecting the conduct of a phase 4 RCT for a general medical condition may influence interpretation of a cardiovascular safety signal. The higher the rates of failure to adhere to the protocol and dropout from the study, the greater the risk of bias. Trials evaluating the cardiovascular safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) when used for arthritis are difficult to conduct and even more challenging to interpret. Concerns include the comparison of drug regimens that do not provide comparable analgesic efficacy and problems with adherence to the protocol and retention in the study. On the basis of phase 4 RCTs of NSAIDs to date, it appears that a comparatively low dose of celecoxib administered to low-risk subjects is associated with approximately the same cardiovascular risk as NSAIDs with less cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitory activity, but at the cost of not controlling arthritic pain as effectively.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 8. Data collection and management

Pragmatic trials can improve our understanding of how treatments will perform in routine practice. In a series of eight papers, the GetReal Consortium has evaluated the challenges in designing and conducting pragmatic trials and their specific methodological, operational, regulatory, and ethical implications. The present final paper of the series discusses the operational and methodological challenges of data collection in pragmatic trials. A more pragmatic data collection needs to balance the delivery of highly accurate and complete data with minimizing the level of interference that data entry and verification induce with clinical practice. Furthermore, it should allow for the involvement of a representative sample of practices, physicians, and patients who prescribe/receive treatment in routine care. This paper discusses challenges that are related to the different methods of data collection and presents potential solutions where possible. No one-size-fits-all recommendation can be given for the collection of data in pragmatic trials, although in general the application of existing routinely used data-collection systems and processes seems to best suit the pragmatic approach. However, data access and privacy, the time points of data collection, the level of detail in the data, and the lack of a clear understanding of the data-collection process were identified as main challenges for the usage of routinely collected data in pragmatic trials. A first step should be to determine to what extent existing health care databases provide the necessary study data and can accommodate data collection and management. When more elaborate or detailed data collection or more structured follow-up is required, data collection in a pragmatic trial will have to be tailor-made, often using a hybrid approach using a dedicated electronic case report form (eCRF). In this case, the eCRF should be kept as simple as possible to reduce the burden for practitioners and minimize influence on routine clinical practice.

The Cardiovascular Pharmacology of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

The principal molecular mechanisms underlying the cardiovascular (CV) and renal adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as myocardial infarction and hypertension, are understood in more detail than most side effects of drugs. Less is known, however, about differences in the CV safety profile between chemically distinct NSAIDs and their relative predisposition to complications. In review article, we discuss how heterogeneity in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of distinct NSAIDs may be expected to affect their CV risk profile. We consider evidence afforded by studies in model systems, mechanistic clinical trials, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and two recent large clinical trials, Standard Care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) and Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen (PRECISION), designed specifically to compare the CV safety of the cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAID, celecoxib, with traditional NSAIDs. We conclude that SCOT and PRECISION have apparently not compared equipotent doses and have other limitations that bias them toward underestimation of the relative risk of celecoxib.

Randomized trial of switching from prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prescribed celecoxib: the Standard care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT)

BACKGROUND

Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and conventional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects. We compared the CV safety of switching to celecoxib vs. continuing nsNSAID therapy in a European setting.

METHOD

Patients aged 60 years and over with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established CV disease and taking chronic prescribed nsNSAIDs, were randomized to switch to celecoxib or to continue their previous nsNSAID. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction or other biomarker positive acute coronary syndrome, non-fatal stroke or CV death analysed using a Cox model with a pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 1.4 for the hazard ratio (HR).

RESULTS

In total, 7297 participants were randomized. During a median 3-year follow-up, fewer subjects than expected developed an on-treatment (OT) primary CV event and the rate was similar for celecoxib, 0.95 per 100 patient-years, and nsNSAIDs, 0.86 per 100 patient-years (HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.50). Comparable intention-to-treat (ITT) rates were 1.14 per 100 patient-years with celecoxib and 1.10 per 100 patient-years with nsNSAIDs (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.33; P = 0.75). Pre-specified non-inferiority was achieved in the ITT analysis. The upper bound of the 95% confidence limit for the absolute increase in OT risk associated with celecoxib treatment was two primary events per 1000 patient-years exposure. There were only 15 adjudicated secondary upper gastrointestinal complication endpoints (0.078/100 patient-years on celecoxib vs. 0.053 on nsNSAIDs OT, 0.078 vs. 0.053 ITT). More gastrointestinal serious adverse reactions and haematological adverse reactions were reported on nsNSAIDs than celecoxib, but more patients withdrew from celecoxib than nsNSAIDs (50.9% patients vs. 30.2%; P < 0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

In subjects 60 years and over, free from CV disease and taking prescribed chronic nsNSAIDs, CV events were infrequent and similar on celecoxib and nsNSAIDs. There was no advantage of a strategy of switching prescribed nsNSAIDs to prescribed celecoxib. This study excluded an increased risk of the primary endpoint of more than two events per 1000 patient-years associated with switching to prescribed celecoxib.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00447759; Unique identifier: NCT00447759.

Odense Pharmacoepidemiological Database: A Review of Use and Content

The Odense University Pharmacoepidemiological Database (OPED) is a prescription database established in 1990 by the University of Southern Denmark, covering reimbursed prescriptions from the county of Funen in Denmark and the region of Southern Denmark (1.2 million inhabitants). It is still active and thereby has more than 25 years of continuous coverage. In this MiniReview, we review its history, content, quality, coverage, governance and some of its uses. OPED's data include the Danish Civil Registration Number (CPR), which enables unambiguous linkage with virtually all other health-related registers in Denmark. Among its research uses, we review record linkage studies of drug effects, advanced drug utilization studies, some examples of method development and use of OPED as sampling frame to recruit patients for field studies or clinical trials. With the advent of other, more comprehensive sources of prescription data in Denmark, OPED may still play a role as in certain data-intensive regional studies.

Use of Electronic Health Data to Estimate Heart Failure Events in a Population-Based Cohort with CKD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Studies that use electronic health data typically identify heart failure (HF) events from hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of HF. This approach may underestimate the total burden of HF among persons with CKD. We assessed the accuracy of algorithms for identifying validated HF events from hospitalizations and outpatient encounters, and we used this validation information to estimate the rate of HF events in a large CKD population.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We identified a cohort of 15,141 adults age 18-89 years with an eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 from 2008 to 2011. Potential HF events during follow-up were randomly sampled for validation with medical record review. Positive predictive values from the validation study were used to estimate the rate of validated HF events in the full cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1864 participants had at least one health care encounter that qualified as a potential HF event during 2.7 years of mean follow-up. Among 313 potential events that were randomly sampled for validation, positive predictive values were 92% for hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of HF, 32% for hospitalizations with a secondary diagnosis of HF, and 70% for qualifying outpatient HF encounters. Through use of this validation information in the full cohort, the rate of validated HF events estimated from the most comprehensive algorithm that included principal and secondary diagnosis hospitalizations and outpatient encounters was 35.2 events/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 33.1 to 37.4), compared with 9.5 events/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 8.7 to 10.5) from the algorithm that included only principal diagnosis hospitalizations. Outpatient encounters accounted for 20% of the total number of validated HF events.

CONCLUSIONS

In studies that rely on electronic health data, algorithms that include hospitalizations with a secondary diagnosis of HF and outpatient HF encounters more fully capture the burden of HF, although validation of HF events may be necessary with this approach.

Does offering an incentive payment improve recruitment to clinical trials and increase the proportion of socially deprived and elderly participants?

Background

Patient recruitment into clinical trials is a major challenge, and the elderly, socially deprived and those with multiple comorbidities are often underrepresented. The idea of paying patients an incentive to participate in research is controversial, and evidence is needed to evaluate this as a recruitment strategy.

Method

In this study, we sought to assess the impact on clinical trial recruitment of a £100 incentive payment and whether the offer of this payment attracted more elderly and socially deprived patients. A total of 1,015 potential patients for five clinical trials (SCOT, FAST and PATHWAY 1, 2 and 3) were randomised to receive either a standard trial invitation letter or a trial invitation letter containing an incentive offer of £100. To receive payment, patients had to attend a screening visit and consent to be screened (that is, sign a consent form). To maintain equality, eventually all patients who signed a consent form were paid £100.

Results

The £100 incentive offer increased positive response to the first invitation letter from 24.7% to 31.6%, an increase of 6.9% (P < 0.05). The incentive offer increased the number of patients signing a consent form by 5.1% (P < 0.05). The mean age of patients who responded positively to the invitation letter was 66.5 ± 8.7 years, whereas those who responded negatively were significantly older, with a mean age of 68.9 ± 9.0 years. The incentive offer did not influence the age of patients responding. The incentive offer did not improve response in the most socially deprived areas, and the response from patients in these areas was significantly lower overall.

Conclusion

A £100 incentive payment offer led to small but significant improvements in both patient response to a clinical trial invitation letter and in the number of patients who consented to be screened. The incentive payment did not attract elderly or more socially deprived patients.

Trial registrations

Standard care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00447759).

Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) (EudraCT number: 2011-001883-23).

Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension with Algorithm Guided Therapy (British Heart Foundation funded trials) (PATHWAY) 1: Monotherapy versus dual therapy for initiating treatment (EudraCT number: 2008-007749-29).

PATHWAY 2: Optimal treatment of drug-resistant hypertension (EudraCT number: 2008-007149-30).

PATHWAY 3: Comparison of single and combination diuretics in low-renin hypertension (EudraCT number: 2009-010068-41).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0582-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Differential impairment of aspirin-dependent platelet cyclooxygenase acetylation by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs

The cardiovascular safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be influenced by interactions with antiplatelet doses of aspirin. We sought to quantitate precisely the propensity of commonly consumed NSAIDs—ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib—to cause a drug-drug interaction with aspirin in vivo by measuring the target engagement of aspirin directly by MS. We developed a novel assay of cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) acetylation in platelets isolated from volunteers who were administered aspirin and used conventional and microfluidic assays to evaluate platelet function. Although ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib all had the potential to compete with the access of aspirin to the substrate binding channel of COX-1 in vitro, exposure of volunteers to a single therapeutic dose of each NSAID followed by 325 mg aspirin revealed a potent drug-drug interaction between ibuprofen and aspirin and between naproxen and aspirin but not between celecoxib and aspirin. The imprecision of estimates of aspirin consumption and the differential impact on the ability of aspirin to inactivate platelet COX-1 will confound head-to-head comparisons of distinct NSAIDs in ongoing clinical studies designed to measure their cardiovascular risk.

Substrate-selective COX-2 inhibition as a novel strategy for therapeutic endocannabinoid augmentation

Pharmacologic augmentation of endogenous cannabinoid (eCB) signaling is an emerging therapeutic approach for the treatment of a broad range of pathophysiological conditions. Thus far, pharmacological approaches have focused on inhibition of the canonical eCB inactivation pathways - fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) for anandamide and monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) for 2-arachidonoylglycerol. We review here the experimental evidence that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-mediated eCB oxygenation represents a third mechanism for terminating eCB action at cannabinoid receptors. We describe the development, molecular mechanisms, and in vivo validation of 'substrate-selective' COX-2 inhibitors (SSCIs) that prevent eCB inactivation by COX-2 without affecting prostaglandin (PG) generation from arachidonic acid (AA). Lastly, we review recent data on the potential therapeutic applications of SSCIs with a focus on neuropsychiatric disorders.

Effectiveness of newspaper advertising for patient recruitment into a clinical trial

AIMS

To measure the impact of newspaper advertising across Scotland on patient interest, and subsequent recruitment into the Standard Care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT), a clinical trial investigating the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Newspaper advertisements about the SCOT trial were placed sequentially in regional and national Scottish newspapers. The number of phone calls as a result of exposure to the advertisements and ongoing study recruitment rates were recorded before, during and after the advertising campaign. To enroll in SCOT individuals had to be registered with a participating GP practice.

RESULTS

The total cost for the advertising campaign was £46 250 and 320 phone calls were received as a result of individuals responding to the newspaper advertisements. One hundred and seventy-two individuals were identified as possibly suitable to be included in the study. However only 36 were registered at participating GP practices, 17 completed a screening visit and 15 finally were randomized into the study. The average cost per respondent individual was £144 and the average cost per randomized patient was £3083. Analysis of recruitment rate trends showed that there was no impact of the newspaper advertising campaign on increasing recruitment into SCOT.

CONCLUSIONS

Advertisements placed in local and national newspapers were not an effective recruitment strategy for the SCOT trial. The advertisements attracted relatively small numbers of respondents, many of whom did not meet study inclusion criteria or were not registered at a participating GP practice.

Testing cardiovascular drug safety and efficacy in randomized trials

Randomized trials provide the gold standard evidence on which rests the decision to approve novel therapeutics for clinical use. They are large and expensive and provide average but unbiased estimates of efficacy and risk. Concern has been expressed about how unrepresentative populations and conditions that pertain in randomized trials might be of the real world, including concerns about the homogeneity of the biomedical and adherence characteristics of volunteers entered into such trials, the dose and constancy of drug administration and the mixture of additional medications that are restricted in such trials but might influence outcome in practice. A distinction has been drawn between trials that establish efficacy and those that demonstrate effectiveness, drugs that patients actually consume in the real world for clinical benefit. However, randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for establishing efficacy and the testing of effectiveness with less rigorous approaches is a secondary, albeit important consideration. Despite this, there is an appreciation that average results may conceal considerable interindividual variation in drug response, leading to a failure to appreciate clinical value or risk in subsets of patients. Thus, attempts are now being made to individualize risk estimates by modulating those derived from large randomized trials with the individual baseline risk estimates based on demographic and biological criteria-the individual Numbers Needed to Treat to obtain a benefit, such as a life saved. Here, I will consider some reasons why large phase 3 trials-by far the most expensive element of drug development-may fail to address the unmet medical needs, which should justify such effort and investment.

Risk of stroke associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective and nonselective agents, have been associated with the increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The majority of studies have focused on myocardial infarction as the primary cardiovascular outcome. However, the association between NSAIDs and the risk of stroke events is not as clear, although an understanding of this association is important since stroke continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Various factors may contribute to an association between NSAIDs and stroke, including hypertension and thrombosis. Additionally, the risk may vary with different NSAID types. In this review, we discuss the relevant literature assessing the possible association between NSAID use and stroke events, along with the potential mechanisms and the possible directions for future study.