A double-blind comparative study of 150 mg flurbiprofen daily and 75 mg indomethacin daily in the treatment of osteoarthrosis of the hip joint

WITHDRAWN: Analgesia and non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the hip

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used as a pharmacologic treatment to relieve pain for patients with OA of the hip. However, these agents are associated with significant toxicity, particularly in the elderly population (age > 65 years).

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized trials of analgesics and anti-inflammatory therapy in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. To determine which non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is the most effective, and which NSAID is the most toxic.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE up to August 1994. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or analgesics in patients with Osteoarthritis. The trials selected for inclusion were identified by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by a second (MH).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative assessments were performed using a quality scoring system designed for NSAID trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Both the design and analysis aspects of the trials were evaluated, each aspect being rated on a scale of 0 to 8. A quantitative method, which calculates the ratio of improvement produced by one NSAID to that produced by another, was used to rate the relative efficacy of different NSAIDs with respect to pain relief. Toxicity comparisons were made according to the reviewer findings. All quality assessments were carried out independently by two reviewers (TT, BS). All data abstraction was carried out by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by two other reviewers (BS, GW). A consensus was reached on discrepancies.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials were identified, and of these, 39 evaluated NSAIDs, while four evaluated only analgesics. The median design and analysis scores were two and four respectively. Six NSAIDs were included in at least five trials. Of these, indomethacin was rated more effective in five of its seven comparisons, but more toxic in seven of 12 comparisons. Only five of the 29 (17%) NSAID comparisons found statistically significant differences in efficacy. Of the 43 RCTs identified only 17 had statistical data available for future pooling for this meta-analysis. In the case where data was missing, authors of the trials will be contacted for inclusion of data in future reviews.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NSAID trials in patients with OA of the hip appear to be weakened by the lack of standardization of case definition of OA, and also by the lack of standardization of outcome assessments. No clear recommendations for the choice of specific NSAID therapy in hip OA can be offered at this time based on this analysis.

Analgesia and non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the hip

OBJECTIVES

To review all randomized trials of analgesics and anti-inflammatory therapy in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. To determine which non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is the most effective, and which NSAID is the most toxic.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Medline up to August 1994. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or analgesics in patients with Osteoarthritis. The trials selected for inclusion were identified by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by a second (MH).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative assessments were performed using a quality scoring system designed for NSAID trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Both the design and analysis aspects of the trials were evaluated, each aspect being rated on a scale of 0 to 8. A quantitative method, which calculates the ratio of improvement produced by one NSAID to that produced by another, was used to rate the relative efficacy of different NSAIDs with respect to pain relief. Toxicity comparisons were made according to the reviewer findings. All quality assessments were carried out independently by two reviewers (TT, BS). All data abstraction was carried out by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by two other reviewers (BS, GW). A consensus was reached on discrepancies.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials were identified, and of these, 39 evaluated NSAIDs, while four evaluated only analgesics. The median design and analysis scores were two and four respectively. Six NSAIDs were included in at least five trials. Of these, indomethacin was rated more effective in five of its seven comparisons, but more toxic in seven of 12 comparisons. Only five of the 29 (17%) NSAID comparisons found statistically significant differences in efficacy. Of the 43 RCTs identified only 17 had statistical data available for future pooling for this meta-analysis. In the case where data was missing, authors of the trials will be contacted for inclusion of data in future reviews.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

NSAID trials in patients with OA of the hip appear to be weakened by the lack of standardization of case definition of OA, and also by the lack of standardization of outcome assessments. No clear recommendations for the choice of specific NSAID therapy in hip OA can be offered at this time based on this analysis.

European experience with flurbiprofen. A new analgesic/anti-inflammatory agent

Numerous European clinical trials begun more than 12 years ago have clearly demonstrated flurbiprofen's safety and efficacy as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic agent. In preclinical studies, flurbiprofen was at least as potent as indomethacin, and approximately 200 times more potent than aspirin. For patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a review of several trials found flurbiprofen often superior to aspirin and naproxen, and equivalent to indomethacin and ibuprofen in efficacy. Acetaminophen appeared no more effective than placebo for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. For patients with ankylosing spondylitis, flurbiprofen was also shown to be equivalent or superior to indomethacin and phenylbutazone. For patients with osteoarthritis of the peripheral joints, spine, hip, and knee, flurbiprofen was again found equal to ibuprofen, diclofenac, indomethacin, and naproxen. Side effects with flurbiprofen were few and predominantly related to the gastrointestinal tract.

Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. A comparison of flurbiprofen and aspirin

The analgesic efficacy of flurbiprofen (Ansaid, Upjohn) and aspirin were compared in a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel, multicenter study of 147 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Flurbiprofen (73 patients) was administered two, three, or four times a day in total daily doses of 100, 150, or 200 mg; aspirin (74 patients) was also given two, three, or four times a day in total daily doses of 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 mg. Flurbiprofen was found effective in controlling pain and other symptoms of osteoarthritis. In general, the flurbiprofen group showed greater improvement in efficacy variables than did the aspirin group. Statistically significant improvements were noted in the flurbiprofen-treated patients for disability at week 12, and in the clinicians' assessment of response to therapy and disability at the final evaluation. Many flurbiprofen-treated patients (46 percent) completing the trial followed a relatively low dosage regimen of 50 mg twice daily for more than half the study. Flurbiprofen was well tolerated, and no significant laboratory abnormalities were detected.

A review of selected investigational nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs of the 1980s

We reviewed the literature on 7 investigational nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): fenbufen, flurbiprofen, tiaprofenic acid, diclofenac, fenclofenac, etodolac and proquazone. These drugs all appear to be at least as effective as currently marketed NSAIDs. Toxicity reported with these newer agents is similar to that seen with other drugs in this class, with gastrointestinal complaints being most commonly reported. The frequency of gastritis and the extent of gastrointestinal microbleeding are less than what occur with aspirin therapy. Fenclofenac may affect thyroid function tests, an effect not noted with other NSAIDs. Proquazone and fenclofenac may have some effect on immunologic function similar to those of slow-acting antirheumatic drugs. These drugs decrease immunoglobulins, rheumatoid factor and C-reactive protein. The place for these drugs in the management of rheumatic diseases has yet to be defined. They may prove to be more beneficial than currently marketed drugs for some patients.

Sustained-release indomethacin in the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis, although primarily a degenerative joint disease, may be associated with significant secondary inflammation. Hydrolytic enzymes result in primary cartilage degradation; secondary inflammation occurs in response to degenerative cartilage breakdown products and crystal deposition. Humoral and cell-mediated immune responses have been described. Analgesic and anti-inflammatory agents play a major role in symptomatic relief. Anti-inflammatory activity of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been ascribed to prostaglandin synthesis inhibition; recent studies suggest additional effects based on inhibition of neutrophil aggregation, superoxide radical generation, and lysosomal enzyme release. Indomethacin, the first of the newer nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, has a long history of use and patient acceptance. Sustained-release indomethacin (Indocin SR), a 75 mg formulation equivalent to three consecutive doses of conventional indomethacin, adds ease of administration and potential for improved compliance. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, used in conjunction with other therapeutic approaches, provide the opportunity for response that can be gratifying for both patients and physicians.

Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials: the case for standardisation

Outcome measures for clinical trials to be valid and reliable should also be responsive to change. There are currently no standardised methods of measuring the outcome in osteoarthritis clinical trials. A review of 63 trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs revealed a large degree of variability in the items, instruments and scales employed. The implications of this variability are discussed and methods proposed for rationalising outcome measurement in this area of clinical research.

An analysis of the gastro-intestinal side-effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with particular reference to comparative studies in man and laboratory species

A critical analysis has been performed of reports published on the incidence of gastro-intestinal (GI) side-effects found in arthritic patients being treated with non-steroid anti-inflammatory (NSAI) drugs. The results show the following: 1. The incidence of GI ulceration (as revealed by gastroscopy) and haemorrhage in arthritic patients taking NSAI drugs may be higher than suspected from clinical trial data. 2. Incidence of all GI side-effects (including ulceration and haemorrhage) may be lower with some of the new NSAI drugs than with traditional drugs (e.g. aspirin, indomethacin and phenylbutazone). 3. Arthritic patients may be more susceptible to the ulcerogenic actions of NSAI drugs. Experiments with animals, together with evidence from clinical studies, indicate that stress factors and the presence of decreased mucosal resistance in the diseased state may contribute to the enhanced susceptibility of the GI tract towards the ulcerogenicity of NSAI drugs. 4. Comparison of data on gastroscopic observations in man with the author's data on the effects of NSAI drugs in stress-sensitized rats shows the latter technique appears to be a useful means of predicting the ulcerogenic potential of NSAI drugs in man. The comparison has also been used to predict the ulcerogenicity of drug - alcohol combinations; alcohol being a common ulcerogen consumed by many patients. Some NSAI drugs with low ulcerogenic activity (i.e. azapropazone, benoxaprofen and fenclofenac) in the stressed-rat assay show little or no interaction with alcohol. These studies using laboratory animals show the importance of employing conditions to mimic environmental factors (e.g. stress and alcohol consumption) which might predispose individuals to ulcerogenic or other side-effects of NSAI drugs. From these studies it appears possible to construct 'predictive profiles' of the relative ulcerogenicity of NSAI drugs which may be applicable to the clinical situation in man.