Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in two similarly designed osteoarthritis studies

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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.

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.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration number:

NCT01425853.

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

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pooled analysis of rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial data: lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance

BACKGROUND

In September 2004, rofecoxib was voluntarily withdrawn from the worldwide market. Our objective was to determine whether and when analysis of published and unpublished placebo-controlled trials could have revealed cardiovascular risk associated with rofecoxib before its withdrawal as an example to inform future postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance efforts.

METHODS

We conducted a cumulative subject-level pooled analysis of data from all randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rofecoxib conducted by the manufacturer before September 2004. Our main outcome measurement was incidence of any investigator-reported death from any cause or cardiovascular thromboembolic (CVT) adverse event.

RESULTS

We identified 30 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rofecoxib that enrolled a combined 20 152 subjects. Trial duration ranged from 4 weeks to 4 years; enrollment ranged from 17 to 2586 subjects prescribed either rofecoxib or placebo; and rofecoxib dose ranged from 12.5 mg to 50 mg. As of December 2000, 21 of these trials had been completed (70%), and the risk of a CVT adverse event or death was greater among subjects assigned to the rofecoxib group (rate ratio [RR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-5.81) (P = .07), raising concerns from a safety standpoint. Subsequently collected data through June 2001 showed that rofecoxib was associated with a 35% increased risk of a CVT adverse event or death (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96) (P = .05). Analyzing data available as of April 2002, we found a 39% increased risk (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07-1.80) (P = .02), and using data available as of September 2004, we found a 43% increased risk (RR,1.43; 95% CI, 1.16-1.76) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Cumulative pooled analysis of all randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrates a trend toward increased cardiovascular risk associated with rofecoxib compared with placebo as early as December 2000, the comparison reaching a P value of .05 by June 2001, nearly 3(1/2) years before the manufacturer's voluntary market withdrawal.

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.