Alfonso E. Bello

Effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib on blood pressure and edema in patients ≥65 years of age with systemic hypertension and osteoarthritis

Concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors, with antihypertensive medication is common practice for many patients with arthritis. This study evaluated the effects of celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day on blood pressure (BP) and edema in a 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study in patients > or =65 years of age with osteoarthritis who were treated with fixed antihypertensive regimens. One thousand ninety-two patients received study medication (celecoxib, n = 549; rofecoxib, n = 543). Significantly more patients in the rofecoxib group compared with the celecoxib group developed increased systolic BP (change >20 mm Hg plus absolute value > or =140 mm Hg) at any time point (14.9% vs 6.9%, p <0.01). Rofecoxib caused the greatest increase in systolic BP in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or beta blockers, whereas those on calcium channel antagonists or diuretic monotherapy receiving either celecoxib or rofecoxib showed no significant increases in BP. Clinically significant new-onset or worsening edema associated with weight gain developed in a greater percentage of patients in the rofecoxib group (7.7%) compared with the celecoxib group (4.7%) (p <0.05). Thus, in patients with controlled hypertension on a fixed antihypertensive regimen, careful monitoring of BP is warranted after the initiation of celecoxib or rofecoxib therapy.

Collagen hydrolysate for the treatment of osteoarthritis and other joint disorders: a review of the literature

ABSTRACT Background: There is a need for an effective treatment for the millions of people in the United States with osteoarthritis (OA), a degenerative joint disease. The demand for treatments, both traditional and non-traditional, will continue to grow as the population ages. Scope: This article reviews the medical literature on the preclinical and clinical research on a unique compound, collagen hydrolysate. Articles were obtained through searches of the PubMed database (www.pubmed.gov) through May 2006 using several pairs of key words (collagen hydrolysate and osteoarthritis; collagen hydrolysate and cartilage; collagen hydrolysate and chondrocytes; collagen hydrolysate and clinical trial) without date limits. In addition, other sources of information, such as abstracts presented at scientific congresses and articles in the German medical literature not available on PubMed, were reviewed and included based on the authors’ judgment of their relevance to the topic of the review. Findings: According to published research, orally administered collagen hydrolysate has been shown to be absorbed intestinally and to accumulate in cartilage. Collagen hydrolysate ingestion stimulates a statistically significant increase in synthesis of extracellular matrix macromolecules by chondrocytes ( p < 0.05 compared with untreated controls). These findings suggest mechanisms that might help patients affected by joint disorders such as OA. Four open-label and three double-blind studies were identified and reviewed; although many of these studies did not provide key information – such as the statistical significance of the findings – they showed collagen hydrolysate to be safe and to provide improvement in some measures of pain and function in some men and women with OA or other arthritic conditions. Conclusion: A growing body of evidence provides a rationale for the use of collagen hydrolysate for patients with OA. It is hoped that ongoing and future research will clarify how collagen hydrolysate provides its clinical effects and determine which populations are most appropriate for treatment with this supplement.

Double-Blind Randomized Trials of Single-Tablet Ibuprofen/High-Dose Famotidine vs. Ibuprofen Alone for Reduction of Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers

OBJECTIVES:We performed two 24-week double-blind trials (REDUCE-1 and -2 (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies)) to assess whether double-dose famotidine given in a single-tablet combination with ibuprofen (HZT-501) significantly reduces gastric and duodenal ulcers as compared with ibuprofen.METHODS:Patients (40–80 years) requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for ≥6 months with no prior ulcer complications, negative H. pylori stool test, and baseline endoscopy showing no ulcers and <5 erosions were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to HZT-501 or identical-appearing ibuprofen 800 mg tablets thrice daily. Study endoscopies were done at 8, 16, and 24 weeks. After unblinding and initial analyses, 12 patients were found to be misclassified as having gastric ulcers based on the adjudication of endoscopy reports, and analyses were re-run.RESULTS:In REDUCE-1, the primary end point analysis of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 12.7% vs. 22.9% (P=0.0044) in the post-adjudication analysis. In REDUCE-2, the primary end point analysis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers was 13.0% vs. 20.5% (P=0.0587) in the post-adjudication analysis. Prespecified pooled analyses showed significantly fewer gastric (12.5% vs. 20.7%) and duodenal ulcers (1.1% vs. 5.1%) with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen. Proportional hazards analysis of multiple potential risk factors showed the risk ratio of upper GI ulcers with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 0.46, 95% confidence interval was 0.34–0.61.CONCLUSIONS:Combined results of the REDUCE studies indicate that double-dose famotidine plus ibuprofen, given as a combination tablet, decreases endoscopic upper GI ulcers as compared with ibuprofen alone.

COX-2 specific inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study.

COX-2 specific inhibitors have demonstrated significant safety advantages and comparable efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) compared with conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but no direct comparative trials between COX-2 specific inhibitors have been published. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter study, 182 patients (≥40 years old) with OA of the knee were randomly assigned to treatment with celecoxib 200 mg q.d. (n = 63), rofecoxib 25 mg q.d. (n = 59), or placebo (n = 60) for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline and Weeks 3 and 6, or at early termination. At Week 6, celecoxib and rofecoxib treatment resulted in similar mean changes from baseline (p > 0.55) in arthritis pain visual analogue scale, patients global assessment, and total score for WOMAC; all changes were superior to placebo (p < 0.05). In the patients global assessment of arthritis pain at Week 6, 79% of celecoxib-treated and 78% of rofecoxib-treated patients improved by ≥1 grade, compared with 50% of placebo patients (celecoxib, p = 0.025; rofecoxib, p = 0.020). Adverse event incidences were similar among the active comparators; however, celecoxib-treated patients had significantly fewer adverse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with rofecoxib-treated patients, which suggests that celecoxib may have a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile than rofecoxib at these doses. Adverse events that prompted withdrawal occurred in fewer than 7% of patients, and the overall incidences were similar between the active agents. Once-daily doses of celecoxib 200 mg and rofecoxib 25 mg offer comparable efficacy and are an effective alternative to conventional NSAIDs in the management of OA.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Tanezumab for the Symptomatic Treatment of Osteoarthritis: 2 Randomized Controlled Trials versus Naproxen

Objective. Two studies evaluated efficacy and safety of tanezumab versus naproxen for treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. Randomized controlled studies [NCT00830063 (Study 1015, n = 828) and NCT00863304 (Study 1018, n = 840)] of subjects with hip or knee OA compared intravenous tanezumab (5 mg or 10 mg) to placebo and naproxen (500 mg twice daily). Coprimary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function (0–10 numerical rating scale), and patient’s global assessment of OA at Week 16. Results. In both studies, tanezumab reduced pain versus placebo [least squares mean differences, 95% CI, tanezumab 5 mg: −1.21 (−1.72, −0.70); −1.13 (−1.65, −0.62); tanezumab 10 mg: −0.91 (−1.42, −0.40); −0.80 (−1.32, −0.29)], and improved function and global scores. Tanezumab 5 mg produced greater pain reduction [−0.76 (−1.28, −0.25); −0.69 (−1.21, −0.17)], and favorable functional and global outcomes versus naproxen. Pain reductions with tanezumab 10 mg versus naproxen did not reach significance, unlike functional (both studies) and global (1 study) outcomes; thus, tanezumab 10 mg was not superior to naproxen, and predefined statistical testing procedures were not met, allowing for conclusion of superiority of tanezumab 5 mg over naproxen despite replicated favorable coprimary outcomes. Tanezumab was associated with greater incidence of peripheral sensory adverse events (paresthesia, hyperesthesia, hypoesthesia, burning sensation), pain in extremity, peripheral edema, and arthralgia. Overall frequency and discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar to placebo and naproxen. Conclusion. Tanezumab provides efficacious treatment of knee or hip OA and may have therapeutic utility in patients with OA who experience inadequate analgesia with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: clinical implications.

In February 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened an advisory committee meeting to discuss the accumulated data relating to the cardiovascular risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the potential implications on the class prescription labeling. The committee recommended, though not unanimously, that (1) the current data does not support the conclusion that naproxen has a lower risk of thrombotic events than other NSAIDs; (2) there is no latency period for the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events; (3) there are some patient populations at increased risk for events; and (4) equipoise remains in the major ongoing trial designed to address these issues further. The clinical implications of the FDA deliberations as well as the recently published meta-analyses and observational studies are discussed. With the information available today, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are significant differences between the approved NSAIDs with regard to the potential for cardiovascular events. An approach for balancing the major risks associated with NSAIDs is suggested. Clinicians should continue to use the current FDA NSAID labeling language to guide their decision making for individual patients until such time as the FDA makes changes.

Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal Ulcers in Patients With Osteoarthritis Receiving Single-Tablet Ibuprofen/Famotidine Versus Ibuprofen Alone: Pooled Efficacy and Safety Analyses of Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparison Trials

Abstract Background: Although anti-inflammatory doses of ibuprofen are very effective in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA), they come with an increased risk for gastrointestinal damage which can limit their use and decrease patient adherence to therapy. Objective: Assess the efficacy and safety of an ibuprofen/famotidine fixed-dose tablet for reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcers compared with ibuprofen alone in OA patients. Methods: Osteoarthritis patients from previously completed randomized, double-blind, comparison registration trials (REDUCE-1 and 2) which included a broad pain patient population, were pooled and analyzed for (1) the risk of endoscopically identified UGI ulcers over 24 weeks and (2) comparative pre-specified treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The primary outcomes were the comparative incidence of UGI, gastric, and duodenal ulcers and TEAEs in (1) the total OA population, (2) those aged ≥ 60 years, and (3) those on low dose aspirin. A total of 776 patients were randomized (safety population), and 713 were evaluable as the study population. Results: Upper gastrointestinal ulcer risk was statistically significantly reduced with the fixed dose tablet compared with ibuprofen alone by 44% in the overall population, 55% in those aged > 60 years and 65% in those on low dose aspirin. Individually, gastric and duodenal ulcers were also significantly reduced in all groups analyzed. Adverse events of special interest were generally similar between the 2 groups, with the exception of dyspepsia. Relative risk reduction for dyspepsia in the overall population was 40% and 55% in those aged ≥ 60 years. Patients not receiving low dose aspirin had a 49% relative risk reduction in dyspepsia. Conclusion: The fixed combination of ibuprofen/famotidine significantly reduced the risk for endoscopically documented gastrointestinal ulcers in OA patients and produced clinically meaningful reductions in patient reported dyspepsia compared with the ibuprofen alone.

Onset and durability of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: Pooled results from two placebo trials of naproxen/esomeprazole combination and celecoxib.

Abstract Objective. To further characterize time-to-first pain relief, effect size, correlations between various outcome measures and durability of relief for single-tablet naproxen 500 mg/esomeprazole 20 mg (NAP/ESO) given twice daily and celecoxib (CEL) (200 mg) given once daily versus placebo in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. Unpublished data from two double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials in which patients aged ≥50 years with knee OA were randomized to NAP/ESO (n = 487), CEL (n = 486) or placebo (n = 246) were pooled (NCT00664560 and NCT00665431). Acute response endpoints: 1) Time to first significant pain response, 2) Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 3) American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ) scores. Sustainability endpoints: 1) Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) and 2) WOMAC Stiffness, Pain and Total scores; and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 and 12 weeks. Effect sizes for all measures were calculated. Rescue pain medication use also was analyzed, as was the correlation of WOMAC to RAPID3. Results. NAP/ESO produced statistically significant decreases in WOMAC Pain on Days 2–7 and at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05); most APS-POQ pain assessments with NAP/ESO were significantly improved on Days 2–7 compared with placebo (all p < 0.05). A good or excellent response occurred in a median of 6 days. RAPID3 and WOMAC total/stiffness/function/PGA scores decreased significantly at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Placebo-adjusted WOMAC pain effect sizes were 0.44, 0.34 and 0.25 at Day 7, week 6 and week 12, respectively. RAPID3 to WOMAC total and WOMAC pain to RAPID3: Pain scores were highly correlated at 6 and 12 weeks (correlation coefficients >0.80). No significant differences in overall responses were found between CEL and NAP/ESO. Conclusion. Naproxen/esomeprazole produced a significant absolute moderate early pain response, which was maintained for 12 weeks. RAPID3 was found to be highly correlated with the typical OA measure (WOMAC) and might be a useful clinical tool for measuring NSAID response. NCT00664560: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00664560, NCT00665431: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665431.

One-year safety of ibuprofen/famotidine fixed combination versus ibuprofen alone: pooled analyses of two 24-week randomized, double-blind trials and a follow-on extension

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the safety of the fixed combination of ibuprofen and famotidine compared with ibuprofen alone from two 24-week, multicenter, double-blind trials designed to evaluate the comparative incidence of endoscopically documented upper gastrointestinal ulcers and a 28-week double-blind extension study. Research design and methods: Safety was analyzed by pooling data from the two double-blind trials and the follow-on study. Safety was assessed by monitoring the incidence, causality, and severity of adverse events (AEs). Results: In the pivotal efficacy and safety trials, discontinuation rates due to any cause and dyspepsia were significantly lower for the ibuprofen/famotidine combination versus ibuprofen alone. Other than dyspepsia, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs of special interest were similar. Events judged to be treatment related were significantly lower with the ibuprofen/famotidine combination (20.6% vs. 25%). In the safety extension population, there were no differences in the discontinuation rates and the reporting of AEs or serious AEs (SAEs) between the two groups. Gastrointestinal-related events were similar between the groups. Incidence of cardiovascular-related AEs of special interest were 11% (ibuprofen/famotidine) and 2% (ibuprofen) (p = 0.06), possibly due to a higher number of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the combination group. Of these, 80% were reports of hypertension (8% ibuprofen/famotidine vs. 2% ibuprofen). Three cases of hypertension in the ibuprofen/famotidine group were considered treatment related. The probability of a cardiovascular event decreased during days 112–167 of treatment and remained low with continued treatment. Conclusions: One-year safety data from two pivotal trials and a long-term extension study indicate that the ibuprofen/famotidine combination demonstrates a favorable gastrointestinal safety profile and more patients continued on therapy compared to ibuprofen alone. No new safety signals have been identified. These data offer additional evidence supporting a new therapeutic option to improve gastrointestinal safety and adherence for patients who require long-term ibuprofen.

DUEXIS® (ibuprofen 800 mg, famotidine 26.6 mg): a new approach to gastroprotection for patients with chronic pain and inflammation who require treatment with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug:

Chronic pain conditions affect at least 116 million US adults and more than one-third of adults worldwide. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used extensively for the treatment of chronic pain due to their efficacy as anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents. Gastrointestinal toxicity is the most well known adverse effect of NSAID therapy and it may manifest as dyspepsia, ulcers, or bleeding. Current guidelines for the management of patients who require NSAIDs for chronic pain and inflammation recognize the potential toxicity associated with these drugs and the need for gastroprotection. DUEXIS® (ibuprofen 800 mg, famotidine 26.6 mg) is a proprietary combination, immediate release tablet containing 800 mg of ibuprofen and 26.6 mg of famotidine. The efficacy of DUEXIS® taken three times daily has been demonstrated in two large-scale controlled clinical trials (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies (REDUCE) and REDUCE-2) which showed that this new formulation significantly reduced the risk of endoscopic upper gastrointestinal ulcers compared with ibuprofen alone (REDUCE-1, p < 0.0001, REDUCE-2, p <0.05). DUEXIS® was also superior to ibuprofen in decreasing the risk for gastric ulcers (REDUCE-1, p < 0.001, REDUCE-2, p < 0.05) as well as duodenal ulcers (REDUCE-1, p < 0.05, REDUCE-2, p < 0.05). Safety results from these two studies indicated that treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 55% of patients treated with DUEXIS® versus 58.7% for ibuprofen, and serious adverse events were recorded for 3.2% of patients treated with DUEXIS® versus 3.3% of those on ibuprofen. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.7% of patients treated with DUEXIS® and 7.6% for ibuprofen. The combination of ibuprofen and famotidine in a single tablet has the potential to improve adherence to gastroprotective therapy in patients who require NSAID treatment and the use of a histamine type 2 receptor antagonist rather than a proton-pump inhibitor may decrease the risk for clinically significant drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. interaction with clopidogrel, fracture, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection).