Lumiracoxib is effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: A 13 week, randomised, double blind study versus placebo and celecoxib

Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Hispalis, Andalusia, Spain
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (Impact Factor: 10.38). 11/2004; 63(11):1419-26. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2003.015974
Source: PubMed


To compare the efficacy and safety of lumiracoxib with placebo and celecoxib for osteoarthritis OA in a 13 week, multicentre, randomised, double blind study.
After a 37 day washout period for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, 1702 patients with knee OA were randomised to lumiracoxib 200 or 400 mg once daily od, celecoxib 200 mg od, or placebo 2221. A visual analogue scale VAS pain intensity > or =40 mm was required. Primary efficacy variables were OA pain intensity VAS mm in the target knee, patients global assessment of disease activity VAS mm, and WOMAC pain subscale and total scores at 13 weeks. OA pain intensity, patients and physicians global assessment of disease activity, and WOMAC total and all subscale scores were analysed by visit as secondary variables.
Lumiracoxib showed significant improvements in all primary and secondary variables compared with placebo. Lumiracoxib 200 mg od and celecoxib 200 mg od achieved similar improvements in OA pain intensity and functional status. Lumiracoxib 400 mg od demonstrated better efficacy for OA pain intensity and patients global assessment of disease activity at weeks 2, 4, and 8 and similar efficacy at week 13 compared with celecoxib 200 mg od. The incidence of adverse events AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs was similar in each group.
Lumiracoxib demonstrated significant improvement in OA pain intensity, patients global assessment of disease activity, and the WOMAC pain subscale and total scores compared with placebo. Lumiracoxib was well tolerated in this study, with overall tolerability similar to that of placebo and celecoxib.

Download full-text


Available from: Francis Berenbaum, Apr 19, 2014
18 Reads
  • Source
    • "Pain was evaluated with more than one PRO in 35 trials [18–21, 23–42, 45–55], and disability was evaluated in 15 trials [18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 53, 54]. More than one intervention group was compared in 14 trials measuring pain [19, 24, 25, 27–29, 34–36, 41, 42, 48–50, 55] and in 4 trials measuring disability [22, 25, 29, 40]. Different specific questions were asked when VAS scores were used for measuring pain. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. To develop a prioritised list based on responsiveness for extracting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring pain and disability for performing meta-analyses in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. A systematic search was conducted in 20 highest impact factor general and rheumatology journals chosen a priori. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials, using two or more PROs measuring pain and/or disability. Results. A literature search identified 402 publications and 38 trials were included, resulting in 54 randomised comparisons. Thirty-five trials had sufficient data on pain and 15 trials on disability. The WOMAC "pain" and "function" subscales were the most responsive composite scores. The following list was developed. Pain: (1) WOMAC "pain" subscale, (2) pain during activity (VAS), (3) pain during walking (VAS), (4) general knee pain (VAS), (5) pain at rest (VAS), (6) other composite pain scales, and (7) other single item measures. Disability: (1) WOMAC "function" subscale, (2) SF-36 "physical function" subscale, (3) SF-36 (Physical composite score), and (4) Other composite disability scores. Conclusions. As choosing the PRO most favourable for the intervention from individual trials can lead to biased estimates, using a prioritised list as developed in this study is recommended to reduce risk of biased selection of PROs in meta-analyses.
    06/2012; 2012(11):136245. DOI:10.1155/2012/136245
  • Source
    • "All the studies included were of sufficient quality to be graded with a Jadad score of >3. Of the 19 studies included, 7 were reported as both published journal articles and clinical study reports [2, 6–9, 10–12] and the remainder were reported only in unpublished Novartis clinical study reports. Where both the published journal article and the original clinical study reports were available pertaining to the same data, both reports were reviewed, but the data were only included once. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 06/2012; 69(2). DOI:10.1007/s00228-012-1335-1 · 2.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Lumiracoxib (Prexige®) is a novel selective COX-2 inhibitor developed for the treatment of OA [14-18] and acute pain, such as dental pain following surgery [19], sprains and strains [20], primary dysmenorrhoea [21] and acute flares of gout [22]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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. NCT00145301.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 02/2008; 9:32. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-9-32 · 1.72 Impact Factor
Show more