Efficacy and safety of epicutaneous ketoprofen in Transfersome (IDEA-033) versus oral celecoxib and placebo in osteoarthritis of the knee: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
ABSTRACT: To compare epicutaneous ketoprofen in Transfersome (ultra-deformable vesicles, IDEA-033) versus oral celecoxib and placebo for relief of signs and symptoms in knee osteoarthritis.This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial; 397 patients with knee osteoarthritis participated and 324 completed the trial. They were randomly assigned 110 mg epicutaneous ketoprofen in 4.8 g Transfersome plus oral placebo (n = 138), 100 mg oral celecoxib plus placebo gel (n = 132), or both placebo formulations (n = 127) twice daily for 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measures were the changes from baseline to end of the study on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale, physical function subscale and patient global assessment (PGA) of response.The mean WOMAC pain subscale scores in the intent to treat population were reduced by 18.2 (95% confidence interval -22.1 to -14.3), 20.3 (-24.3 to -16.2) and 9.9 (-13.9 to -5.8) in the IDEA-033, celecoxib and placebo groups, respectively, and the physical function subscale score by 14.6 (-18.1 to -11.0), 16.6 (-20.2 to -13.0) and 10.2 (-13.8 to -6.6), respectively. The mean PGA of response scores were 1.8 (1.6 to 2.1), 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9) and 1.3 (1.1 to 1.5), respectively. The differences in change between IDEA-033 and placebo were statistically significant for pain subscale (p<0.01) and PGA of response (p<0.01). Gastrointestinal adverse events for IDEA-033 were similar to placebo.IDEA-033 is superior to placebo and comparable with celecoxib in relieving pain associated with an acute flare of knee osteoarthritis.
Project description:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ketoprofen in Transfersome® gel (IDEA-033) in comparison with a ketoprofen-free vehicle (TDT 064) for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.Patients with knee OA (N = 866) were randomly assigned to receive topical IDEA-033 containing 100, 50, or 25 mg ketoprofen, or TDT 064 twice daily for 12 weeks, in a double-blind trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC®) Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale score. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were the WOMAC function subscale score and the patient global assessment of response to therapy. The secondary endpoints included the numeric pain rating for the first 14 days of treatment and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder rates.The WOMAC pain scores were reduced by approximately 50% or more in all four groups. The 100 and 50 mg ketoprofen groups, but not the 25 mg group, showed a superior reduction in the WOMAC pain score versus the TDT 064 group (100 mg: -57.4% [P = 0.0383]; 50 mg: -57.1% [P = 0.0204]; and 25 mg: -53.4% [P = 0.3616] versus TDT 064: -49.5%). The superiority of the ketoprofen-containing formulations was not demonstrated for the WOMAC function subscale score, whereas the patient global assessment of 50 mg ketoprofen group, but not the 100 or 25 mg group, was superior to that of the TDT 064 group (P = 0.0283). Responder rates were significantly higher for all the IDEA-033 groups versus the TDT 064 group, but were high in all groups (100 mg: 88.6%; 50 mg: 86.8%; 25 mg: 88.6%; and TDT 064: 77.5%). Dermal reactions were the only relevant drug-related adverse events in all four groups.The 50 and 100 mg ketoprofen doses of IDEA-033 were only marginally superior to TDT 064 for reducing pain associated with knee OA. The study indicates a high treatment response to the topical ketoprofen-free vehicle TDT 064.
Project description:Purpose:A pooled analysis was conducted to evaluate tanezumab efficacy and safety in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), including subgroup analyses of at-risk patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, and those aged ?65 years. Patients and methods:Data from phase III placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip were pooled to evaluate tanezumab efficacy (four trials) and safety (nine trials). Patients received intravenous tanezumab, tanezumab plus an oral NSAID (naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac), active comparator (naproxen, celecoxib, diclofenac, or oxycodone), or placebo. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores, Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and percentage of patients with ?30%, ?50%, ?70%, and ?90% improvement in WOMAC pain. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) documentation and physical and neurologic examinations. Results:Tanezumab significantly improved all efficacy end points in the overall population. Efficacy in at-risk patient subgroups was similar to the overall population. Incidence of AEs was highest in the tanezumab plus NSAID group and lowest in the placebo group. Incidence of AEs in the tanezumab monotherapy and active comparator groups was similar. Overall incidence of AEs was similar across subgroups. AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation were more frequently reported in tanezumab-treated patients compared with placebo or active comparator. Patients receiving active comparator had a slightly higher incidence of AEs suggestive of postganglionic sympathetic dysfunction. Conclusion:Tanezumab consistently provided significant improvement of pain, physical function, and PGA in individuals with OA, including patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, or aged ?65 years. No increased safety risk was observed in at-risk patient subgroups. Trial registration:NCT00733902, NCT00744471, NCT00830063, NCT00863304, NCT00809354, NCT00864097, NCT00863772, NCT01089725, NCT00985621.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain. METHODS:Patients with moderate-to-severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow-up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms. RESULTS:Of the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36-week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging -0.78 to -1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab-treated patients and 1% of placebo-treated patients) occurred in a dose-dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab. CONCLUSION:Fasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit-to-risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA.
Project description:Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) is an absolute threshold proposed for symptomatic variables in osteoarthritis (OA) to determine the point beyond which patients consider themselves well and, as such, are satisfied with treatment. Two large previously reported studies of knee OA have shown that both lumiracoxib and celecoxib were superior to placebo in terms of conventional outcome measures. To assess the clinical relevance of these results from the patient's perspective, the same data pooled from these two studies were analysed with respect to the PASS. In total, 3,235 patients were included in two multicentre, randomised, double-blind studies of identical design. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily (n = 811), lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily with an initial dose of lumiracoxib 200 mg once daily for the first 2 weeks (100 mg once daily with initial dose [n = 805]), celecoxib 200 mg once daily (n = 813), or placebo (n = 806) for 13 weeks. Treatments were compared with respect to the PASS criteria (for OA pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Likert version 3.1 [WOMAC LK 3.1] Function [difficulty in performing daily activities] subscale score). At week 13, 43.3%, 45.3%, and 42.2% of patients in the lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily, lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily with initial dose, and the celecoxib 200 mg once daily groups, respectively, considered their current states as satisfactory versus 35.5% in the placebo group. Similar results were observed for patient's global assessment of disease activity and WOMAC LK 3.1 Function subscale score. This post hoc analysis suggests that the statistical significance of the results observed with lumiracoxib or celecoxib compared with placebo using conventional outcome variables is complemented by clinical relevance to the patient.NCT00366938 and NCT00367315.
Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and analgesic efficacy of polmacoxib 2 mg versus placebo in a superiority comparison or versus celecoxib 200 mg in a noninferiority comparison in patients with osteoarthritis (OA).This study was a 6-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind, and parallel-group trial followed by an 18-week, single arm, open-label extension. Of the 441 patients with knee or hip OA screened, 362 were randomized; 324 completed 6 weeks of treatment and 220 completed the extension. Patients were randomized to receive oral polmacoxib 2 mg (n = 146), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 145), or placebo (n = 71) once daily for 6 weeks. During the extension, all participants received open-label polmacoxib 2 mg. The primary endpoint was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC)-pain subscale score from baseline to week 6. Secondary endpoints included WOMAC-OA Index, OA subscales (pain, stiffness, and physical function) and Physician's and Subject's Global Assessments at weeks 3 and 6. Other outcome measures included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and physical examinations.After 6 weeks, the polmacoxib-placebo treatment difference was -2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.4 to -0.6; p = 0.011) and the polmacoxib-celecoxib treatment difference was 0.6 (CI, -0.9 to 2.2; p = 0.425). According to Physician's Global Assessments, more subjects were "much improved" at week 3 with polmacoxib than with celecoxib or placebo. Gastrointestinal and general disorder AEs occurred with a greater frequency with polmacoxib or celecoxib than with placebo.Polmacoxib 2 mg was relatively well tolerated and demonstrated efficacy superior to placebo and noninferior to celecoxib after 6 weeks of treatment in patients with OA. The results obtained during the 18-week trial extension with polmacoxib 2 mg were consistent with those observed during the 6-week treatment period, indicating that polmacoxib can be considered safe for long-term use based on this relatively small scale of study in a Korean population. More importantly, the results of this study showed that polmacoxib has the potential to be used as a pain relief drug with reduced gastrointestinal side effects compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for OA.
Project description:Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) that is widely used. The efficacy and safety of celecoxib for treatment of acute postoperative pain were evaluated in Japanese patients. The objective was to assess whether celecoxib showed superiority over placebo treatment and non-inferiority versus etodolac (another selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) that has been widely used for the management of acute pain. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, controlled study was performed, in which 616 patients with postoperative pain received celecoxib, etodolac, or placebo. Their impressions of study drug efficacy (overall assessment) and pain intensity were evaluated. Based on each patient's overall assessment of pain, the efficacy rate was 63.7% in the placebo group, 76.2% in the celecoxib group, and 68.0% in the etodolac group, with these results demonstrating superiority of celecoxib to placebo and noninferiority versus etodolac. The efficacy rate was significantly higher in the celecoxib group than in the etodolac group. There were no adverse events specific to celecoxib, and the safety of celecoxib was similar to that of placebo. Celecoxib was superior to etodolac for controlling acute postoperative pain.
Project description:Objective To compare the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms. Method In this 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to 200 mg celecoxib once daily, 800 mg ibuprofen three times daily or placebo. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of celecoxib to ibuprofen in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (scored 0-100). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and upper gastrointestinal tolerability. Results A total of 388 patients were treated (celecoxib n = 153; ibuprofen n = 156; placebo n = 79). Mean difference (95% confidence interval) between celecoxib and ibuprofen in the Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain was 2.76 (-3.38, 8.90). As the lower bound was greater than -10, celecoxib was non-inferior to ibuprofen. The WOMAC total score was significantly improved with celecoxib and ibuprofen, versus placebo. Patients receiving celecoxib were significantly more satisfied (versus placebo) in 10 of 11 measures on the Pain Satisfaction Scale versus three measures with ibuprofen. Upper gastrointestinal events were less frequent with celecoxib (1.3%) than ibuprofen (5.1%) or placebo (2.5%). Conclusion Celecoxib was well tolerated and as effective as ibuprofen for symptoms associated with knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00630929.
Project description:BACKGROUND:This is an update of a review published in The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4. Celecoxib is a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor usually prescribed for the relief of chronic pain in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib is believed to be associated with fewer upper gastrointestinal adverse effects than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Its effectiveness in acute pain was demonstrated in the earlier reviews. OBJECTIVES:To assess analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of celecoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent search was to 3 January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of adults prescribed any dose of oral celecoxib or placebo for acute postoperative pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors assessed studies for quality and extracted data. We converted summed pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) into dichotomous information, yielding the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours, and used this to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief with celecoxib who would not have done so with placebo. We used information on use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. MAIN RESULTS:Eight studies (1380 participants) met the inclusion criteria. We identified five potentially relevant unpublished studies in the most recent searches, but data were not available at this time. The number of included studies therefore remains unchanged.The NNT for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg compared with placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over four to six hours was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 5.6) and 2.5 (2.2 to 2.9) respectively. The median time to use of rescue medication was 6.6 hours with celecoxib 200 mg, 8.4 with celecoxib 400 mg, and 2.3 hours with placebo. The proportion of participants requiring rescue medication over 24 hours was 74% with celecoxib 200 mg, 63% for celecoxib 400 mg, and 91% for placebo. The NNT to prevent one patient using rescue medication was 4.8 (3.5 to 7.7) and 3.5 (2.9 to 4.6) for celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg respectively. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity, and were experienced by a similar proportion of participants in celecoxib and placebo groups. One serious adverse event probably related to celecoxib was reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Single-dose oral celecoxib is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain relief. Indirect comparison suggests that the 400 mg dose has similar efficacy to ibuprofen 400 mg.
Project description:Chondroitin sulfate 800 mg/day (CS) pharmaceutical-grade in the management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis consistent with the European Medicines Agency guideline.A prospective, randomised, 6-month, 3-arm, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo and celecoxib (200 mg/day)-controlled trial assessing changes in pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and in the Lequesne Index (LI) as coprimary endpoints. Minimal-Clinically Important Improvement (MCII), Patient-Acceptable Symptoms State (PASS) were used as secondary endpoints.604 patients (knee osteoarthritis) diagnosed according to American College of Rheumalogy (ACR) criteria, recruited in five European countries and followed for 182 days. CS and celecoxib showed a greater significant reduction in pain and LI than placebo. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, pain reduction in VAS at day 182 in the CS group (-42.6 mm) and in celecoxib group (-39.5 mm) was significantly greater than the placebo group (-33.3 mm) (p=0.001 for CS and p=0.009 for celecoxib), while no difference observed between CS and celecoxib. Similar trend for the LI, as reduction in this metric in the CS group (-4.7) and celecoxib group (-4.6) was significantly greater than the placebo group (-3.7) (p=0.023 for CS and p=0.015 for celecoxib), no difference was observed between CS and celecoxib. Both secondary endpoints (MCII and PASS) at day 182 improved significantly in the CS and celecoxib groups. All treatments demonstrated excellent safety profiles.A 800 mg/day pharmaceutical-grade CS is superior to placebo and similar to celecoxib in reducing pain and improving function over 6 months in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This formulation of CS should be considered a first-line treatment in the medical management of knee OA.
Project description:Although the safety of celecoxib has been investigated, limited data are available on complications affecting the entire (upper and lower) gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with no patient-level pooled analyses of upper and lower GI outcomes available. We therefore evaluated the upper and lower GI safety of celecoxib by using patient-level data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).This patient-level pooled analysis included 52 prospective, randomized, double-blind parallel-group studies from the Celecoxib Clinical Database. Each study had a planned duration of continuous treatment with celecoxib or a nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (nsNSAID), rofecoxib, or the placebo comparator arm for at least 4 weeks. All studies with final reports completed by 1 October 2007 were included. The primary end point was the combined incidence of clinically significant upper and lower GI events (CSULGIEs). An independent blinded committee reviewed and adjudicated all end points by using predefined criteria and all available reported adverse events, laboratory data, and case narratives. All doses of celecoxib and all doses of all nsNSAIDs were pooled for analysis.The pooled analysis involved 51,048 patients; 28,614 were randomized to celecoxib; 15,278 to nsNSAIDs (including 3,248 patients taking naproxen, 2,640 taking ibuprofen, 8,066 taking diclofenac, 1,234 taking loxoprofen, and 90 taking ketoprofen); 5,827 to placebo and 1,329 to rofecoxib. The mean age was 60 years, and 65% were women. Data on 1,042 patients with potential GI events were reviewed for end-points adjudication; the adjudication committee confirmed 89 patients with CSULGIEs. The majority were in the celecoxib and nsNSAID groups (with raw incidence proportions of 37 (0.1%) and 40 (0.3%), respectively). The incidence rates were 0.3, 0.9 and 0.3 per 100 patient-years in the celecoxib, nsNSAID, and placebo groups, respectively. The time to incidence of CSULGIEs was significantly longer with celecoxib than with nsNSAIDs (P=0.0004).When compared with nsNSAIDs, celecoxib is associated with a significantly lower risk of all clinically significant GI events throughout the entire GI tract. This pooled analysis of 52 RCTs significantly advances the understanding of the upper and lower GI safety profile of celecoxib and its potential benefits to patients.