Article

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: 9.27). 11/2004; 63(11):1419-26. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2003.015974
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

Full-text

Available from: Francis Berenbaum, Apr 19, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
80 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objectives of the study are to demonstrate the non-inferiority of PG201 (Layla(®)) 600 mg in comparison with celecoxib 200 mg for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). In total, 309 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the test drug, PG201 600 mg (n = 154) or celecoxib 200 mg (n = 155). The primary efficacy variable was improvement in mean 100-mm pain VAS score from baseline to the final visit (week 8), and this value was compared between the 2 treatment groups. Secondary outcome variables included changes from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain VAS score and subscale score, patient's global assessment of disease status quality of life (short form-36) and responder index at weeks 4 and 8. For safety assessment, adverse events were recorded at each clinical visit. At weeks 8, the 100-mm pain VAS scores were significantly decreased in patients receiving both PG201 600 mg (p < 0.0001) and celecoxib 200 mg (p < 0.0001) as compared to the baseline scores; however, no statistically significant differences in these values were noted between the groups (p = 0.312). These results met pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority for both the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations. PG201 600 mg and celecoxib 200 mg were both well tolerated and no statistically significant differences in the tolerability profile between the groups. PG201 600 mg was as effective and safe as celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of symptomatic knee OA and might be a useful new medication for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA.
    Rheumatology International 02/2014; 34(10). DOI:10.1007/s00296-014-2964-8 · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis. A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was >=12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors. Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics. This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 03/2014; 15(1):76. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-15-76 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present work was conducted to examine whether celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, 200 mg administered 1 h preoperatively to patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery reduces postoperative pain. Fifty-three patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive either 200 mg of celecoxib (Group I) or 200 mg of placebo (Group II) 1 h preoperatively. Narcotic use was monitored for 24 h, and time in recovery room was determined. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Short-Form 12 (SF-12), including a physical composite score (PCS) and a mental composite score (MCS), documented pain in recovery, 12 h postoperatively, and 24 h postoperatively. Moreover, time in recovery room was also investigated. We enrolled 27 patients in Group I and 26 patients in Group II. Groups were comparable for patient characteristics. No significant difference was detected in terms of VAS scores and SF-12 in recovery room. Statistically, patients in Group I showed significantly lower pain VAS scores at 12 and 24 h postoperatively. Patients taking celecoxib had significantly higher PCS at 12 and 24 h postoperatively. No difference occurred between groups for the MCS. Patients taking celecoxib also showed a significant reduction in postoperative narcotic consumption. The obtained results from the current study indicate that patients who took celecoxib 200 mg 1 h before arthroscopic hip surgery had a less painful and more rapid recovery. Celecoxib 200 mg as a single preoperative dose could be considered as part of a perioperative analgesic plan in arthroscopic hip surgery.
    European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 11/2013; 24(6). DOI:10.1007/s00590-013-1359-y · 0.18 Impact Factor