Search

PHYSICIANS, PATIENTS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ARE confronted with an acute confusional state regarding the cardiovascular safety of medicines for arthritis. Since September 30, 2004, the day that rofecoxib was precipitously withdrawn, there has hardly been a day without significant news on the general topic of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors. On December 9, 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a black box warning for valdecoxib for life-threatening skin reactions and cardiovascular risk. Just over a week later, on December 17, 2004, the National Cancer Institute announced the premature cessation of a trial of celecoxib known as Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) due to a significant excess of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. The principal cardiovascular event data for APC are summarized in the FIGURE. This was a trial of 2026 patients, with randomization to 1 of 3 groups: placebo; celecoxib, 200 mg twice daily; or celecoxib, 400 mg twice daily. The patients, each of whom had an adenomatous polyp removed before enrollment, were followed up for a mean of 33 months (of a planned 60 months) while taking the study drug, with the primary objective of limiting the development of colorectal cancer. A significant excess of major cardiovascular events was demonstrated, with a dose-response effect (odds ratio, 2.5 for celecoxib 400-mg dose, and 3.4 at the 800-mg dose, vs placebo) (Figure). The absolute excess of major cardiovascular events of 13/1000 patients at the 400-mg dose and 21/1000 patients at the 800-mg dose is similar in magnitude to the results of trials with rofecoxib and valdecoxib. However, it is not possible to meaningfully interpret interdrug differences because the patient populations in the various trials were different; the drug doses, strength, and duration of therapy were different; and each of the drugs in the coxib class are distinct molecules with specific biological properties. While celecoxib is the least COX-2 selective in the class of 5 agents that have gone through pivotal trials, lumiracoxib is the most selective. A trial of 18325 patients, the largest in the field, demonstrated only modest (not statistically significant) excess of cardiovascular risk when lumiracoxib was compared with naproxen, but not when compared with ibuprofen. Importantly, there have not been any direct comparative (head-to-head) trials of one of the agents vs another, which is the only way to definitively establish likeness or difference between the drugs. Notwithstanding these concerns, several epidemiologic studies have considered large populations of patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or COX-2 inhibitors. In general, these studies found an increased cardiovascular hazard for rofecoxib, especially at higher doses, but not for celecoxib. Some studies therefore concluded that celecoxib did not carry any risk for MI or stroke. But in randomized trials, a signal for potential cardiovascular risk with celecoxib was present. As my colleagues and I described in a 2001 review of the Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS), the MI rate was 1.6% in the celecoxib group (at a dosage of 400 mg twice per day) and 1.2% in the diclofenac or ibuprofen group for the 1739 patients taking low-dose aspirin. This numerical excess, albeit not statistically significant, was also found in the 6229 Figure. Event Rates of Cardiovascular Death, Myocardial Infarction, and Stroke in the Adenoma Prevention With Celecoxib (APC) Trial

ContextConventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a spectrum of toxic effects, notably gastrointestinal (GI) effects, because of inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1. Whether COX-2–specific inhibitors are associated with fewer clinical GI toxic effects is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether celecoxib, a COX-2–specific inhibitor, is associated with a lower incidence of significant upper GI toxic effects and other adverse effects compared with conventional NSAIDs.DesignThe Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS), a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted from September 1998 to March 2000.SettingThree hundred eighty-six clinical sites in the United States and Canada.ParticipantsA total of 8059 patients (≥18 years old) with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were enrolled in the study, and 7968 received at least 1 dose of study drug. A total of 4573 patients (57%) received treatment for 6 months.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, 400 mg twice per day (2 and 4 times the maximum RA and OA dosages, respectively; n = 3987); ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times per day (n = 1985); or diclofenac, 75 mg twice per day (n = 1996). Aspirin use for cardiovascular prophylaxis (≤325 mg/d) was permitted.Main Outcome MeasuresIncidence of prospectively defined symptomatic upper GI ulcers and ulcer complications (bleeding, perforation, and obstruction) and other adverse effects during the 6-month treatment period.ResultsFor all patients, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.76% vs 1.45% (P = .09) and 2.08% vs 3.54% (P = .02), respectively. For patients not taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.44% vs 1.27% (P = .04) and 1.40% vs 2.91% (P = .02). For patients taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 2.01% vs 2.12% (P = .92) and 4.70% vs 6.00% (P = .49). Fewer celecoxib-treated patients than NSAID-treated patients experienced chronic GI blood loss, GI intolerance, hepatotoxicity, or renal toxicity. No difference was noted in the incidence of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and NSAIDs, irrespective of aspirin use.ConclusionsIn this study, celecoxib, at dosages greater than those indicated clinically, was associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic ulcers and ulcer complications combined, as well as other clinically important toxic effects, compared with NSAIDs at standard dosages. The decrease in upper GI toxicity was strongest among patients not taking aspirin concomitantly.

Purpose To re-evaluate the cardiovascular risk of lumiracoxib compared with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of lumiracoxib versus placebo or other NSAIDs in patients with osteoarthritis reported up to January 2010. Both published and unpublished trials were included. PubMed searches using predefined search criteria (lumiracoxib AND osteoarthritis, limits: none; COX-189 AND osteoarthritis, limits: none) were used to obtain the relevant published trials. Novartis granted explicit access to their company studies and the right to use these study reports for the purposes of publication in peer reviewed journals. Endpoints were the Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC) endpoint and individual cardiovascular endpoints. Results Meta-analysis of 6 trials of lumiracoxib versus placebo revealed no difference in cardiovascular outcomes. Meta-analysis of 12 trials of lumiracoxib versus other NSAIDs also revealed no difference. The pooled odds ratios were: 1.16 (95% CI 0.82, 1.63); 1.66 (95% CI 0.84, 3.29); 0.95 (95% CI 0.52, 1.76) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.60, 1.80) for the APTC endpoint, myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death respectively. Conclusions The results suggest that there were no significant differences in cardiovascular outcomes between lumiracoxib and placebo or between lumiracoxib and other NSAIDs in patients with osteoarthritis. Wide confidence intervals mean that further research is needed in this area to confirm these findings.

Background The efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib, a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, has been demonstrated in previous studies of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). As it is important to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of treatments for a chronic disease such as OA, the present study compared the effects of lumiracoxib at doses of 100 mg once daily (o.d.) and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with those of celecoxib 200 mg o.d. on retention on treatment over 1 year. Methods In this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, male and female patients (aged at least 40 years) with symptomatic primary OA of the hip, knee, hand or spine were randomised (1:2:1) to lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. (n = 755), lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. (n = 1,519) or celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 758). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of lumiracoxib at either dose compared with celecoxib 200 mg o.d. with respect to the 1-year retention on treatment rate. Secondary outcome variables included OA pain in the target joint, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, Short Arthritis assessment Scale (SAS) total score, rescue medication use, and safety and tolerability. Results Retention rates at 1 year were similar for the lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. and celecoxib 200 mg o.d. groups (46.9% vs 47.5% vs 45.3%, respectively). It was demonstrated that retention on treatment with lumiracoxib at either dose was non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg o.d. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves for the probability of premature discontinuation from the study for any reason were similar across the treatment groups. All three treatments generally yielded comparable results for the secondary efficacy variables and all treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion Long-term treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., the recommended dose for OA, was as effective and well tolerated as celecoxib 200 mg o.d. in patients with OA. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT00145301

Background Lumiracoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) with a superior gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile as compared to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, ibuprofen and naproxen). This safety study compared the GI tolerability, the blood pressure (BP) profile and the incidence of oedema with lumiracoxib and rofecoxib in the treatment of OA. Rofecoxib was withdrawn worldwide due to an associated increased risk of CV events and lumiracoxib has been withdrawn from Australia, Canada, Europe and a few other countries following reports of suspected adverse liver reactions. Methods This randomised, double-blind study enrolled 309 patients (aged greater than or equal to 50 years) with primary OA across 51 centres in Europe. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either lumiracoxib 400 mg od (four times the recommended dose in OA) (n = 154) or rofecoxib 25 mg od (n = 155). The study was conducted for 6 weeks and assessments were performed at Weeks 3 and 6. The primary safety measures were the incidence of predefined GI adverse events (AEs) and peripheral oedema. The secondary safety measures included effect of treatment on the mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (msSBP and msDBP). Tolerability of lumiracoxib 400 mg was assessed by the incidence of AEs. Results Lumiracoxib and rofecoxib displayed similar GI safety profiles with no statistically significant difference in predefined GI AEs between the two groups (43.5% vs. 37.4%, respectively). The incidence and severity of individual predefined GI AEs was comparable between the two groups. The incidence of peripheral oedema was low and identical in both the groups (n = 9, 5.8%). Only one patient in the lumiracoxib group and three patients in the rofecoxib group had a moderate or severe event. At Week 6 there was a significantly lower msSBP and msDBP in the lumiracoxib group compared to the rofecoxib group (p < 0.05). A similar percentage of patients in both groups showed an improvement in target joint pain and disease activity. The tolerability profile was similar in both the treatment groups. Conclusion Lumiracoxib 400 mg od (four times the recommended dose in OA) provided a comparable GI safety profile to rofecoxib 25 mg od (therapeutic dose). However, lumiracoxib was associated with a significantly better BP profile as compared to rofecoxib. Trial registration number - NCT00637949

The discovery of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 has provided the rationale for the development of a new class of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the selective COX-2 inhibitors (denominated coxibs), with the aim of reducing the gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with the administration of NSAIDs by virtue of COX-1 sparing. Rofecoxib and celecoxib are the first selective COX-2 inhibitors approved by the FDA and EMEA for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA) and for relief of acute pain. Rofecoxib has been shown to spare COX-1 activity ex vivo, in platelets and gastric mucosa, when administered at therapeutic doses or above. In a large clinical trial, COX-2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to halve the incidence of serious upper GI events vs a nonselective NSAID. Recently, other selective COX-2 inhibitors with different COX-1/COX-2 selectivity and pharmacokinetic features have been developed, i.e. valdecoxib, parecoxib, etoricoxib and lumiracoxib. The improved biochemical selectivity of valdecoxib vs celecoxib in vitro (COX-1/COX-2 ratio: 60 vs 30, respectively) may be clinically relevant leading to an improved GI safety. Interestingly, parecoxib, a pro-drug of valdecoxib, is the only injectable coxib. Etoricoxib, showing only a slightly higher COX-2 selectivity than rofecoxib in vitro (COX-1/COX-2 ratio: 344 vs 272, respectively), has been reported to cause a similar specific COX-2 inhibition ex vivo that should translate into comparable GI safety. Lumiracoxib, the most selective COX-2 inhibitor in vitro (COX-1/COX-2 ratio: 400), is the only acidic coxib. It has been hypothesized that this pecular chemical feature may lead to an enhanced concentration in inflammatory sites that may translate into an improved clinical efficacy. The results of clinical trials have shown that coxibs have a comparable clinical efficacy and renal toxicity and an improved GI safety vs nonselective NSAIDs. Whether the different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetics features of the various coxibs will produce detectable differences in efficacy and toxicity remains to be evaluated in appropriate comparative randomized clinical studies.