Efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib versus naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial

Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib and a Korean SYSADOA (JOINS) for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The efficacy of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, including celecoxib, in managing knee osteoarthritis (KO) is well-established. Recently, the plant extract cocktail JOINS (SKI306X and its newer formulation, SKCPT) has been shown to be an effective slow-acting drug for KO. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib and JOINS in patients with KO. Methods: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of celecoxib and JOINS. The outcomes included pain relief, functional improvement, and safety profiles. Outcome measurements were compared between the celecoxib and JOINS cohorts at the short-term (closest to 3 months) and mid-term (closest to 12 months). Results: Overall, 23 RCTs involving 3367 patients were included in this systematic review. The efficacy of JOINS in reducing pain, as indicated by the visual analog scale (VAS) score, was comparable to that of celecoxib. Regarding functional improvement assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC), JOINS showed improvement comparable to that of celecoxib regardless of follow-up. In addition, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between the celecoxib and JOINS cohorts. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that JOINS could be considered as a pharmacological agent with significant efficacy for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with KO in clinical practice.

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.

Targeting nerve growth factor, a new option for treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety with traditional drugs

OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease and leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly population. Most guidelines recommend the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for the non-operative treatment of OA. Monoclonal nerve growth factor (NGF) antibodies are new drugs with the potential to provide pain relief and functional improvement in OA. We compared the efficacy (pain reduction and functional improvement), and safety of monoclonal NGF antibodies with NSAIDs and opioids in the treatment of OA with a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

38 articles, comprising 41 trials and 20489 patients with OA were included. Overall from the network meta-analysis, anti-NGFs were the most effective drugs for pain relief (Standardized Mean Difference or SMD compared with placebo 4.25, 95% CI 2.87 to 5.63, Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve or SUCRA=93.7%) and for functional improvement (SMD 4.90, 95% CI 3.46 to 6.33, SUCRA=98.3%). Although anti-NGFs were associated with higher risk of peripheral sensation abnormality (paresthesia and pruritus), they were not associated with higher risk of other AEs (headaches and nausea) or with higher withdrawal rates related to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Monoclonal NGF antibodies provide significantly greater pain relief and functional improvement in OA compared to NSAIDs and opioids. Monoclonal NGF antibodies are not associated with severe AEs. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.

METHODS

PubMed, CNKI, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies (OA treated with anti-NGFs, opioids, selective COX-2 inhibitors or NSAIDs) published between January 1999 to January 2020. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. Pain relief, functional improvement and AEs were assessed.

Is Lutikizumab, an Anti-Interleukin-1α/β Dual Variable Domain Immunoglobulin, efficacious for Osteoarthritis? Results from a bayesian network meta-analysis

Objective

Most guidelines recommend the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), duloxetine, and tramadol for the nonoperative treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), but the use of them is limited by the tolerability and safety concerns. Lutikizumab is a novel anti–IL-1α/β dual variable domain immunoglobulin that can simultaneously bind and inhibit IL-1α and IL-1β to relieve the pain and dysfunction symptoms. We conducted this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lutikizumab with other drugs recommended by guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses to compare the efficacy and safety of lutikizumab with other traditional drugs. All eligible randomized clinical trials, in PubMed, CNKI, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, from January 2000 to January 2020, were included. The Cochrane risk of the bias assessment tool was used for quality assessment. Pain relief, function improvement, and risk of adverse effects (AEs) were compared in this study.

Results

24 articles with 11858 patients were included. Duloxetine (DUL) had the largest effect for pain relief (4.76, 95% CI [2.35 to 7.17]), and selective cox-2 inhibitors (SCI) were the most efficacious treatment for physical function improvement (SMD 3.94, 95% CI [2.48 to 5.40]). Lutikizumab showed no benefit compared with placebo for both pain relief (SMD 1.11, 95% CI [-2.29 to 4.52]) and function improvement (SMD 0.992, 95% CI [-0.433 to 4.25]). Lutikizumab and all other drugs are of favorable tolerance for patients in the treatment of OA compared with placebo.

Conclusions

Lutikizumab, the new anti–Interleukin-1α/β dual variable domain immunoglobulin, showed no improvement in pain or function when compared with placebo. Selective cox-2 inhibitors and duloxetine remain the most effective and safest treatment for OA. More high-quality trials are still needed to reconfirm the findings of this study.

Economic Outcomes Related to Persistence and Dosing of Celecoxib in Patients with Osteoarthritis (OA) Using a Retrospective Claims Database Analysis

Objective

This study describes treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs associated with persistence, switching, and dosing of branded celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA) patients.

Methods

This retrospective claims database analysis used MarketScan^® Commercial Claims and Encounters (MarketScan) data from 2009 to 2013. Included patients were adult (≥ 18 years), incident celecoxib users with ≥ 1 OA claim. The treatment switch analysis analyzed outcomes in patients persistent on celecoxib versus switched to a generic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The dosing analysis stratified patients as under-dose (<200 mg per day) and standard dose (≥200 mg per day). HCRU, costs, and treatment duration were compared in persistent versus switched and standard dose versus under-dose patients using descriptive, multivariate logistic regression, and Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

A total of 65,530 patients met the inclusion criteria. During follow-up, 83% discontinued celecoxib without switching, 10% were persistent, and 5% switched to a generic NSAID. Ninety percent received a standard dose of celecoxib. Switched (versus persistent) patients had significantly higher all-cause hospital admissions, length of stay, emergency room (ER) visits, and office visits per person year (PPY), all P <0.001; and under-dosed (versus standard dose) patients had significantly higher hospital admissions (P<0.001), length of stay (P<0.001), and ER visits (P= 0.021) PPY. Persistent versus switched patients had lower mean total all-cause costs PPY ($20,378 vs $23,949, P<0.001). Standard dose versus under-dose patients had lower mean total all-cause costs ($23,680 vs $26,955 PPY, P<0.001), and not statistically significant higher mean total OA-related costs ($5698 vs $5524 PPY, P=0.441).

Conclusion

Patients that switched from branded celecoxib to a generic NSAID or received an under-dose of branded celecoxib had higher average overall HCRU and costs. OA-related inpatient and outpatient cost savings may offset the higher drug cost of celecoxib for persistent patients.

Non-operative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and debilitating condition for which a wide range of non-surgical treatment options are available. Although there is plethora of literature investigating their safety and efficacy, for many treatment modalities, a consensus has not yet been reached concerning efficacy. Therefore, it is essential for practitioners to understand the risks and benefits of the available treatments for the successful management of knee OA. This study explored the efficacy of non-surgical treatment options for knee OA including: (I) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); (II) weight loss; (III) intra-articular injections; (IV) physical therapy; and (V) bracing.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of studies between 1995 and 2018 was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed and EBSCO Host. Searches were performed using the following terms: total knee arthroplasty (TKA); cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors; bracing; physical therapy; weight loss; knee; treatment; therapeutics; OA; intra-articular injection; hyaluronic acid; corticosteroid; and alternatives. The initial search yielded 7,882 reports from which 545 relevant studies were identified. After full-text analysis, 43 studies were included for this analysis.

RESULTS

NSAIDs are most effective when used continuously and may be used in conjunction with other forms of treatment for knee OA as they have been shown to provide some pain relief as well as functional improvements. Weight loss is a safe and effective way to improve knee pain, function, and stiffness without adverse effects. However, it can be very challenging for obese patients with knee OA due to their limited mobility and lack of adherence to a low-calorie diet. Intra-articular injections have had mixed results, with findings from recent studies indicating long-term outcomes to be equivocal. Physical therapy leads to significant improvements in pain and function. Decreased compliance with physical therapy is thought to be due to high copayments, pain with activities, lacks of transportation, and high time commitments. Brace modalities have demonstrated significant pain and functional improvements and prolongations of the time to TKA. Additionally, they limit the need for other treatment modalities which are associated with greater risks.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs, weight loss, intraarticular injections, and physical therapy have all been shown to be effective non-surgical treatment options for knee OA. However, these options have some limitations, and are best when used in conjunction. Bracing for knee OA is a noninvasive, non-pharmacologic option which can significantly reduce pain and improve function with minimal adverse effects. Therefore, a combination of knee braces along with other non-operative modalities should be one mainstay of treatment in conjunction with other treatment modalities to reduce pain, improve function, stiffness, and mobility in knee OA.

Celecoxib for the treatment of musculoskeletal arthritis

Introduction: The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor celecoxib is an approved compound for rheumatoid (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA), combining both anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties with a good gastrointestinal tolerability. Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy as well as the latest safety data available for celecoxib with emphasis on the treatment of RA and OA. It is based primarily on a current literature search on PubMed and Web of Science, but also on the professional rheumatological expertise of the authors. Expert opinion: Celecoxib has been shown to be superior to placebo and equivalent to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). Many studies have been published making celecoxib a good and safe treatment option in particular in moderate arthritis and patients without established cardiovascular (CV) disease. Moreover, older patients might gain significant benefits compared to tNSAIDs due to reduced gastrointestinal events even when having a history of ulcer bleedings. Nonetheless, there is still much to learn, especially regarding the prescription of celecoxib in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. While low doses seem to be safe according to present data, the knowledge on the more effective, higher doses >400 mg/day is still limited.

Penetration and efficacy of transdermal NSAIDs in a model of acute joint inflammation

Purpose

Prescription and OTC non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are ubiquitous treatments for pain and inflammation; however, oral administration of these drugs may produce gastrointestinal (GI) side effects. Transdermal (TD) administration of NSAIDs circumvents these adverse events by avoiding the GI tract and, presumably, achieves regional drug levels of therapeutic effect and thereby, fewer off-target complications.

Methods

A drug quantification method was developed for ibuprofen and celecoxib in canine plasma and synovial fluid using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. This method was employed to evaluate the penetrance of ibuprofen and celecoxib topical formulations in dogs. Effectiveness of these topical NSAID formulations was compared to the equivalent oral drug concentration in a canine sodium-urate model of acute joint inflammation. In this model, pain was quantified using a modified Canine Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire and regional inflammation using joint caliper measurements; the significance of intervention was evaluated using linear mixed models for repeated measures along with Bonferroni corrections.

Results

After seven days of chronic topical administration, Delivra™ (DEL) formulations of ibuprofen and celecoxib generated serum levels of 2.9µg/mL and 220ng/mL and synovial fluid levels of 1.8 µg/mL and 203 ng/mL (respectively). In the canine model of acute inflammation, the overall treatment effects as well as the treatment by time interactions were strongly significant (P<0.001) for both drugs. Oral ibuprofen proved uniquely effective at the earliest time point, while all ibuprofen formulations were effective at treating pain at 8.5 and 24.5 hours post-induction. Similarly, all celecoxib formulations (oral and topical) were equally effective at 8.5 and 24.5 hours post-induction.

Conclusion

DEL formulations of ibuprofen and celecoxib successfully introduced these NSAIDs into synovial fluid at concentrations similar to those observed in circulation. Furthermore, these formulations reduced symptoms of pain associated with acute inflammation. Oral and transdermally delivered NSAIDs have similar pain relief effects; therefore, a replacement or combinatorial treatment may provide a more stable pain relief profile. In conclusion, this work supports further investigation of TD products in the treatment of regional inflammatory events.

Inhibition of Osteoarthritis-Related Molecules by Isomucronulatol 7-O-β-d-glucoside and Ecliptasaponin A in IL-1β-Stimulated Chondrosarcoma Cell Model

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the common form of arthritis and is characterized by disability and cartilage degradation. Although natural product extracts have been reported to have anti-osteoarthritic effects, the potential bioactivity of Ryupunghwan (RPH), a traditional Korean medicinal botanical formula that contains Astragalus membranaceus, Turnera diffusa, Achyranthes bidentata, Angelica gigas, Eclipta prostrata, Eucommia ulmoides, and Ilex paraguariensis, is not known well. Therefore, the inhibitory effects of single compounds isolated from RPH on the OA-related molecules were investigated using IL-1β-stimulated chondrosarcoma SW1353 (SW1353) cell model. Two bioactive compounds, isomucronulatol 7-O-β-d-glucoside (IMG) and ecliptasaponin A (ES) were isolated and purified from RPH using column chromatography, and then the structures were analyzed using ESI-MS, ¹H-NMR, and ¹³C-NMR spectrum. The expression or amount of matrix metalloproteinase 13 (MMP13), COX1/2, TNF-α, IL-1β or p65 was determined by RT-PCR, Western blot, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RPH pretreatment reduced the expression and amounts of MMP13, and the expression of collagen II, COX1/2, TNF-α, IL-1β or p65, which were increased in IL-1β-stimulated SW1353 cells. IMG reduced the expression of all OA-related molecules, but the observed inhibitory effect was less than that of RPH extract. The other single compound ES showed the reduced expression of all OA-related molecules, and the effect was stronger than that in IMG (approximately 100 fold). Combination pretreatment of both single components remarkably reduced the expression of MMP13, compared to each single component. These synergic effects may provide potential molecular modes of action for the anti-osteoarthritic effects of RPH observed in clinical and animal studies.

Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Nonsurgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.

METHODS

We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.

RESULTS

For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.

DISCUSSION

Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.

Cost-effectiveness of generic celecoxib in knee osteoarthritis for average-risk patients: a model-based evaluation

OBJECTIVE

The cost-effectiveness of the recently-introduced generic celecoxib in knee OA has not been examined.

METHOD

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of generic celecoxib in persons with knee OA. We examined eight treatment strategies consisting of generic celecoxib, over-the-counter (OTC) naproxen, or prescription naproxen, with or without prescription or OTC proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. In the base case, we assumed that annual cost was $130 for OTC naproxen, $360 for prescription naproxen, and $880 for generic celecoxib. We considered a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and discounted costs and benefits at 3% annually. In sensitivity analyses we varied celecoxib toxicity, discontinuation, cost, and pain level.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis of the high pain cohort (WOMAC 50), celecoxib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $284,630/QALY compared with OTC naproxen. Only under highly favorable cost, toxicity, and discontinuation assumptions (e.g., annual cost below $360, combined with a reduction in the cardiovascular (CV) event rates below baseline values) was celecoxib likely to be cost-effective. Celecoxib might also be cost-effective at an annual cost of $600 if CV toxicity were eliminated completely. In subjects with moderate pain (WOMAC 30), at the base case CV event rate of 0.2%, generic celecoxib was only cost-effective at the lowest plausible cost ($190).

CONCLUSION

In knee OA patients with no comorbidities, generic celecoxib is not cost-effective at its current price.

The economic and clinical burden of early versus late initiation of celecoxib among patients with osteoarthritis

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics associated with early versus late initiation of celecoxib treatment after osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis and whether economic and safety outcomes differ between patients with early versus late initiation of celecoxib.

Methods

Adults (≥18 years) with a confirmed OA diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modifications code: 715.XX), ≥12 months of continuous pre- and post-index enrollment, and ≥1 post-index claim for celecoxib were included from the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounter Database (2009-2013). Index date was defined as initial OA diagnosis. Patients were categorized as initiating celecoxib early (within 6 months of index date) or late (≥6 months after index date). Logistic regressions were used to assess characteristics associated with early versus late celecoxib initiation. Key outcomes included health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs post-index, and adverse event incidence post-celecoxib initiation. Unadjusted and adjusted comparisons (using generalized linear models with a gamma distribution for costs and Poisson distribution for event and resource utilization) were made between early and late celecoxib initiators.

Results

Of the 62,434 OA patients identified, 27,402 were early and 35,032 were late initiators. Post-index hospital admissions and length of stay did not differ statistically between early versus late initiators after controlling for pre-index event rates and covariates, but early patients had significantly fewer outpatient (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 0.97) and emergency room visits (IRR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.95). After adjustment for key covariates, early initiators (versus late initiators) had lower all-cause (US$12,909 versus US$13,781, P<0.001) and OA-related (US$4,988 versus US$5,178, P=0.015) costs per person-year. Early initiators had no statistically significant difference in the incidence of post-celecoxib cardiovascular (IRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.14), gastrointestinal (IRR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.92), or renal (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.65, 2.18) events, controlling for pre-index event rates and covariates when compared to late initiators.

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort, patients initiated on celecoxib early (versus late) had significantly lower costs and HCRU; this may warrant consideration when making treatment decisions for OA patients.

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.

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.

Onset and durability of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: Pooled results from two placebo trials of naproxen/esomeprazole combination and celecoxib

OBJECTIVE

To further characterize time-to-first pain relief, effect size, correlations between various outcome measures and durability of relief for single-tablet naproxen 500 mg/esomeprazole 20 mg (NAP/ESO) given twice daily and celecoxib (CEL) (200 mg) given once daily versus placebo in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Unpublished data from two double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials in which patients aged ≥ 50 years with knee OA were randomized to NAP/ESO (n = 487), CEL (n = 486) or placebo (n = 246) were pooled (NCT00664560 and NCT00665431). Acute response endpoints: 1) Time to first significant pain response, 2) Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 3) American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ) scores. Sustainability endpoints: 1) Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) and 2) WOMAC Stiffness, Pain and Total scores; and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 and 12 weeks. Effect sizes for all measures were calculated. Rescue pain medication use also was analyzed, as was the correlation of WOMAC to RAPID3.

RESULTS

NAP/ESO produced statistically significant decreases in WOMAC Pain on Days 2-7 and at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05); most APS-POQ pain assessments with NAP/ESO were significantly improved on Days 2-7 compared with placebo (all p < 0.05). A good or excellent response occurred in a median of 6 days. RAPID3 and WOMAC total/stiffness/function/PGA scores decreased significantly at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Placebo-adjusted WOMAC pain effect sizes were 0.44, 0.34 and 0.25 at Day 7, week 6 and week 12, respectively. RAPID3 to WOMAC total and WOMAC pain to RAPID3: Pain scores were highly correlated at 6 and 12 weeks (correlation coefficients >0.80). No significant differences in overall responses were found between CEL and NAP/ESO.

CONCLUSION

Naproxen/esomeprazole produced a significant absolute moderate early pain response, which was maintained for 12 weeks. RAPID3 was found to be highly correlated with the typical OA measure (WOMAC) and might be a useful clinical tool for measuring NSAID response. NCT00664560: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00664560, NCT00665431: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665431.

A combination of Scutellaria baicalensis and Acacia catechu extracts for short-term symptomatic relief of joint discomfort associated with osteoarthritis of the knee

The extracts of Scutellaria baicalensis and Acacia catechu have been shown in previous studies to alleviate joint discomfort, reduce stiffness, and improve mobility by reducing the production of proinflammatory molecules over long periods of supplementation. The acute effects of intake of these extracts have not yet been investigated. Thus, we carried out a 1 week clinical trial to examine the extent to which UP446-a natural proprietary blend of S. baicalensis and A. catechu (UP446)-decreases knee joint pain, mobility, and biomarkers of inflammation in comparison to naproxen. Seventy-nine men and women (40-90 years old) diagnosed as having mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) consumed either 500 mg/day of the UP446 supplement or 440 mg/day of naproxen for 1 week in a double-blind randomized control trial. Pain, knee range of motion (ROM), and overall physical activity were evaluated at the start and at the end of treatment. Fasting blood was collected to determine serum interleukins 1β and 6, tumor necrosis factor-α, C-reactive protein, and hyaluronic acid. The UP446 group experienced a significant decrease in perceived pain (P=.009) time dependently. Stiffness was significantly reduced by both treatments (P=.002 UP446, P=.008 naproxen). Significant increases in mean ROM over time (P=.04) were found in the UP446 group. These findings suggest that UP446 is effective in reducing the physical symptoms associated with knee OA.

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.