Results of a randomized, dose-ranging trial of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and define the clinically active dose range for further clinical trials. METHODS: This two-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled trial was conducted in 617 adults with knee OA. In Part 1 (6 weeks), patients received placebo, etoricoxib 5, 10, 30, 60 or 90 mg q.d. In Part 2 (8 weeks), patients received etoricoxib 30, 60 or 90 mg q.d. or diclofenac 50 mg t.i.d., predetermined at Part 1 allocation. Efficacy and safety were evaluated. Primary efficacy end-points were the Western Ontario and McMaster's University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale, Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy, and Investigator Global Assessment of Disease Status. RESULTS: At 6 weeks, etoricoxib 5, 10, 30, 60 and 90 mg each demonstrated clinical efficacy superior to placebo. Maximal efficacy was seen with 60 mg. In Part 2, etoricoxib 30, 60 and 90 mg were generally similar to diclofenac. Patients receiving etoricoxib 30, 60 or 90 mg in Parts I and II had sustained effects over 14 weeks. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg once daily showed maximal efficacy in treating OA in this study. Etoricoxib 5-90 mg once daily was generally well tolerated in OA patients for up to 14 weeks.

Around-the-clock, controlled-release oxycodone therapy for osteoarthritis-related pain: placebo-controlled trial and long-term evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although opioid analgesics have well-defined efficacy and safety in treatment of chronic cancer pain, further research is needed to define their role in treatment of chronic noncancer pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of controlled-release oxycodone (OxyContin tablets) treatment on pain and function and its safety vs placebo and in long-term use in patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain. METHODS: One hundred thirty-three patients experiencing persistent osteoarthritis-related pain for at least 1 month were randomized to double-blind treatment with placebo (n = 45) or 10 mg (n = 44) or 20 mg (n = 44) of controlled-release oxycodone every 12 hours for 14 days. One hundred six patients enrolled in an open-label, 6-month extension trial; treatment for an additional 12 months was optional. RESULTS: Use of controlled-release oxycodone, 20 mg, was superior (P<.05) to placebo in reducing pain intensity and the interference of pain with mood, sleep, and enjoyment of life. During long-term treatment, the mean dose remained stable at approximately 40 mg/d after titration, and pain intensity was stable. Fifty-eight patients completed 6 months of treatment, 41 completed 12 months, and 15 completed 18 months. Common opioid side effects were reported, several of which decreased in duration as therapy continued. CONCLUSIONS: Around-the-clock controlled-release oxycodone therapy seemed to be effective and safe for patients with chronic, moderate to severe, osteo-arthritis-related pain. Effective analgesia was accompanied by a reduction in the interference of pain with mood, sleep, and enjoyment of life. Analgesia was maintained during long-term treatment, and the daily dose remained stable after titration. Typical opioid side effects were reported during short- and long-term therapy.

A controlled study comparing the effects of nabumetone, ibuprofen, and ibuprofen plus misoprostol on the upper gastrointestinal tract mucosa.

BACKGROUND: This study was developed to compare the incidence of endoscopically diagnosed ulcers in elderly patients taking nabumetone, ibuprofen, or concomitant ibuprofen/misoprostol. Further research is indicated to better establish the clinical relevance of these endoscopy findings. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, 12-week study involving 171 patients with osteoarthritis aged 60 years and older. Patients were randomized to receive nabumetone, 1000 mg (n = 58); ibuprofen, 600 mg four times daily (n = 53); or ibuprofen, 600 mg four times daily, administered concomitantly with misoprostol, 200 micrograms four times daily (n = 60). Endoscopy was performed at baseline and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. Endoscopy results were scored on a scale of 1 to 9. Significant ulcers were defined as breaks in the mucosa greater than 5 mm with appreciable depth. RESULTS: Of the 171 randomized patients, 148 completed the study. There was no significant difference in the incidence of significant ulcers between the nabumetone group and the ibuprofen/misoprostol group (one vs zero). There were significantly fewer significant ulcers in the nabumetone and ibuprofen/misoprostol groups than in the ibuprofen monotherapy group (one and zero vs eight; P < .01). There also was a significant difference in the time to ulcer development, with a greater risk of developing an ulcer sooner with ibuprofen treatment (P < .01) than either nabumetone or ibuprofen/misoprostol treatment. The severity of osteoarthritis, based on physicians' assessments, improved in 64% of patients in the nabumetone group, 55% of those in the ibuprofen group, and 63% of those in the ibuprofen/misoprostol group. CONCLUSIONS: Nabumetone is equivalent in ulcerogenicity to concomitant ibuprofen/misoprostol and is significantly less ulcerogenic than ibuprofen alone.

Long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis comparing nabumetone with aspirin.

This report summarizes the results of a 17-investigator multicenter six-month randomized double-blind parallel group study. The safety and efficacy of nabumetone 1,000 mg taken at bedtime was compared with that of aspirin 900 mg four times daily in the treatment of adult patients with active class II or III classical or definite rheumatoid arthritis. Two hundred sixty-four patients were entered into the study. Two hundred fifty-seven (126 nabumetone and 131 aspirin) patients were evaluable for safety. Two hundred thirty-four (113 nabumetone and 121 aspirin) patients were evaluable for efficacy. There was significant improvement in each of six clinical measurements of efficacy in both treatment groups and little difference between groups. The somewhat greater improvement in articular index and duration of morning stiffness in the nabumetone-treated group did not reach statistical significance. There was an equal percentage of patient withdrawal for lack of efficacy in each group. Overall, the rate of patient withdrawal due to adverse experiences was greater (p = 0.01) for aspirin-treated patients. These experiences were usually dispepsia, abdominal pain, and tinnitus. It was concluded that nabumetone was an effective anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with less toxicity than aspirin.

Controlled evaluation of nabumetone in the treatment of active adult rheumatoid arthritis. Nabumetone versus naproxen double-blind parallel study.

Nabumetone is a new nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent. Therapy with nabumetone 1,000 mg given at bedtime was compared with naproxen 250 mg given twice daily in a prospective double-blind study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Both drugs were found to be efficacious in a comparable fashion. Both drugs were well tolerated in terms of patient withdrawal rates, which were 5 and 8 percent, respectively. Gastrointestinal side effects were the most commonly encountered problem. Nabumetone holds promise as an important new therapeutic approach in arthritis.

Six-month multi-center study comparing nabumetone with naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

This six-month, double-blind, controlled, randomized, parallel study at 13 medical centers compared the safety and efficacy of nabumetone (1,000 mg taken at bedtime) with that of naproxen (250 mg twice daily) in the treatment of osteoarthritis in symptomatic adult outpatients. Five efficacy parameters were measured: patients' assessment of overall osteoarthritis activity and pain, physicians' assessment of overall osteoarthritis activity and pain, and physicians' assessment of pain with respect to a declined activity. All 489 patients who took medication were included in the evaluation of safety, and 455 patients (227 in the nabumetone group and 228 in the naproxen group) were evaluated for efficacy. Significant improvement in all five efficacy parameters occurred in both groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups at the end of the study in any of the five efficacy parameters. Twenty-three percent of nabumetone and 17 percent of naproxen patients withdrew from the study for lack of efficacy. At least one possible or probable treatment-related adverse experience was reported for 45 percent of nabumetone-treated patients and 42 percent of those given naproxen, and in 19 percent of the nabumetone-treated and 18 percent of the naproxen-treated patients these experiences were moderate or severe. However, only 7 percent of patients in each group withdrew from the study due to adverse experiences. Nabumetone and naproxen have comparable safety and efficacy, suggesting that a single, nighttime dose of nabumetone is a convenient, effective, and safe treatment for osteoarthritis.

Clearance and tissue uptake of immune complexes in complement-depleted and control mice.

The clearance kinetics, specific hepatic uptake and specific splenic uptake of immune complexes were examined in control mice and in mice treated with large doses of purified cobra venom factor (CoF) to deplete serum C3. At least 90% depletion of C3 was achieved as tested by double diffusion with antiserum specific to antigenic determinants on C3. A saturating dose of preformed immune complexes, consisting of HSA and rabbit antibodies to HSA, was used in these experiments. No differences in clearance kinetics and organ uptake of the immune complexes containing IgG as antibodies were observed between the two groups of mice. Within the limits of the experimental system no evidence was obtained for the participation of serum C3 and C3b receptors on Kupffer cells in the hepatic uptake of circulating immune complexes. The apparent discrepancies on the role of C3 and C3b receptors between these experiments and the in vitro studies on the uptake of immune complexes by macrophages is most likely related to the differences in the lattice of immune complexes employed by investigators.