Search

Objective: To directly compare the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, and placebo for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee., Patients and Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with OA of the knee or hip was performed between February 2003 and November 2003 in 61 medical centers in the United States. Qualified patients aged 40 to 89 years were randomized to receive placebo, etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy end points Included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Response to treatment was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks., Results: In 528 patients, baseline values for the 3 primary end points ranged from 67.78 to 72.60 mm (0-100 mm visual analog scale). Near-maximal efficacy was achieved by week 2 with both active treatments and sustained over the course of the trial. During the 12-week period, least squares mean changes in the primary end points (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status subscales) ranged from -16.53 to -13.55 mm, -27.89 to -23.68 mm, and -26.53 to -22.97 mm in the placebo, etoricoxib, and Ibuprofen groups, respectively. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were more effective (P<.001) than placebo for all primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen treatment responses for the primary end points were determined to be comparable with use of prespecified comparability criteria. Results for all other efficacy end points were consistent with responses observed for the primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen generally were well tolerated., Conclusion: For patients with OA, treatment with etoricoxib, 30 mg/d, is well tolerated and provides sustained clinical effectiveness that is superior to placebo and comparable to ibuprofen, 2400 mg/d.

Background: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid represents a substantive addition to the therapeutic armamentarium in knee osteoarthritis. We examined the effect of dietary supplementation with a natural extract of chicken combs with a high content of hyaluronic acid (60%) (Hyal-Joint®) (active test product, AP) on pain and quality of life in subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee. Methods: Twenty subjects aged ≥40 years with knee osteoarthritis (pain for at least 15 days in the previous month, symptoms present for ≥6 months, Kellgren/Lawrence score ≥2) participated in a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Ten subjects received AP (80 mg/day) and 10 placebo for 8 weeks. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and quality of life by the Short Form-36 (SF-36v2) were administered at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Results: WOMAC pain (primary efficacy variable) was similar in both study groups (mean [SD]) with 6.6 (4.0) points in the AP group and 6.4 (2.7) in the placebo group (P = 0.943). As compared with baseline, subjects in both groups showed statistically significant improvements in WOMAC pain, stiffness, physical function subscales, and in the aggregate score, but the magnitude of changes was higher in the AP group for WOMAC physical function (-13.1 [12.0] vs. -10.1 [8.6], P = 0.575) and total symptoms (-18.6 [16.8] vs. -15.8 [11.4], P = 0.694). At 4 weeks, statistically significant mean changes compared with baseline were observed in the SF-36v2 scales of role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning and role-emotional among subjects in the AP group, and in physical functioning, bodily pain, and social functioning in the placebo group. At 8 weeks, changes were significant for role-physical, bodily pain, and physical component summary in the AP group, and for physical functioning and role-emotional in the placebo arm. Changes in bodily pain and social functioning were of greater magnitude in subjects given AP. Conclusion: This pilot clinical trial showed that daily supplementation with oral hyaluronic acid from a natural extract of chicken combs (Hyal-Joint®) was useful to enhance several markers of quality of life in adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. The results warrant further study in larger sample sizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background:: Lumiracoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2-selectiveinhibitor developed for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis, and acute pain. Objectives:: This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 100 mg QD compared with celecoxib and placebo in patients with OA of the knee. Methods:: In this 13-week, double-blind, double-dummy,placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients with primary OA of the knee and pain intensity in the target knee a40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale after a 3- to 7-day washout of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with a loading dose of lumiracoxib 200 mg QD for the first 2 weeks, celecoxib 200 mg QD, or placebo. Three primary efficacy variables were assessed at the end of the study: pain intensity in the target knee, the patient''s global assessment of disease activity, and functional status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score). In addition, the treatment response was assessed using the Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT OARSI) criteria. The safety profile and tolerability of all treatments were also examined. Results:: The study enrolled 1551 patients (primarily white; 62% female; mean age, 60.5 years): 391 were randomized to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, 385 lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with a loading dose, 393 celecoxib 200 mg QD, and 382 placebo. Treatment groups were closely balanced at baseline with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. Lumiracoxib was superior to placebo (P &#60; 0.001) and similar to celecoxib on all primary efficacy variables. Reductions in pain intensity in the target knee were similar in the 2 lumiracoxib groups at week 13 (estimated least square mean difference vs placebo: −6.7 and −8.1 mm for lumiracoxib 100 mg QD and lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with loading dose, respectively; both, P &#60; 0.001); with celecoxib, the estimated least square mean difference was −5.7 mm (P &#60; 0.001). Significant differences compared with placebo were seen in all variables starting at week 2 for all active treatments (all, P &#60; 0.001). No significant differences were seen between the lumiracoxib groups at any time point. Based on OMERACT OARSI criteria, all active treatments were superior to placebo (all, P &#60; 0.001). Lumiracoxib and celecoxib were well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events similar to that with placebo (64.7% lumiracoxib 100 mg QD, 67.0% lumiracoxib 100 mg QD with loading dose, 58.8% celecoxib, 58.4% placebo). Conclusion:: In this population of patients with OA of the knee, lumiracoxib 100 mg QD was of similar efficacy to celecoxib 200 mg QD and had similar tolerability to placebo. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors and nonselective NSAIDs are commonly used to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the lidocaine patch 5% with that of celecoxib 200 mg/d in the treatment of OA-related knee pain; however, the study was terminated prematurely by the sponsor because of tolerability concerns regarding the class of COX-2 selective inhibitors. A post hoc analysis of the available data is presented here. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study included patients ≥18 years of age with unilateral or bilateral moderate to severe OA of the knee. Patients were randomized to receive treatment with either the lidocaine patch 5% or celecoxib 200 mg/d. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index pain subscale. Secondary end points included additional WOMAC subscales and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) measures. Because this trial was prematurely terminated, a post hoc analysis was performed using a random pattern-mixture model of all observed cases of the intent-to-treat population. Results: A total of 143 patients were randomized to treatment (lidocaine patch 5%, 69 patients; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.4] years; 65.2% female; 66.7% white; weight, 94.1 [23.3] kg) or celecoxib 200 mg/d (74 patients; age, 58.2 [12.1] years; 63.5% female; 68.9% white; weight, 94.3 [22.5] kg). Baseline pain WOMAC OA subscale scores (lidocaine patch 5%, 12.087; celecoxib 200 mg/d, 12.514) and mean rates of change over time (baseline to week 2, -1.5916 vs -1.6513 per week; weeks 2–6, -0.0168 vs -0.119 per week; weeks 6–12, -0.1818 vs -0.1579 per week) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Improvement in additional WOMAC subscales and in several BPI measures were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 8 patients in each treatment group (11.6% in the lidocaine patch 5% group and 10.8% in the celecoxib 200-mg/d group) and were considered mild or moderate in severity. Conclusion: Statistically significant differences in effectiveness and tolerability were not found between these 2 treatments in these patients with OA knee pain. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]