[DGRh recommendations for the implementation of current security aspects in the NSAID treatment of musculoskeletal pain]. / DGRh-Empfehlungen zur Implementierung aktueller Sicherheitsaspekte in die NSAR-Therapie muskuloskelettaler Schmerzen.

NSAIDs exert their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects by inhibition of COX­2, a key enzyme for proinflammatory prostanoid synthesis. Therapy with NSAIDs is limited by their typical gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal side effects, which are caused by inhibition of COX­1 (gastrointestinal toxicity), COX­2 (cardiovascular side effects) or both COX-isoenzymes (renal side effects). Appropriate prevention strategies should be employed in patients at risk. If gastrointestinal risk factors are present, co-administration of a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol is recommended; in patients with cardiovascular risk, coxibs, diclofenac and high-dose ibuprofen should be avoided. Furthermore, drug interactions and contraindications should be considered. In patients with renal impairment (GFR < 30 ml/min) all NSAIDs must be avoided. Ulcer anamnesis is a contraindication for traditional NSAIDs. Preexisting cardio- or cerebrovascular diseases are contraindications for coxibs. Treatment decisions should be individually based with a continuous monitoring of the risk - benefit ratio and exploitation of non-pharmacological treatment options.

Short-term placebo response in trials of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis: differences between hip and knee.

BACKGROUND: In placebo-controlled RCT of symptomatic treatment in osteoarthritis (OA) the extent of pain reduction is heterogeneous, the pooled effect size rather small. Pain reduction is typically higher in knee than in hip trials. The recommended trial duration is 3 months, but in knee OA the best treatment effect vs placebo is observed at 2 weeks. We hypothesized that the placebo response differs in knee vs hip OA. OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis to describe the time course of pain in placebo groups of trials in knee and hip OA over 3 months. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar of placebo-controlled cox-2 inhibitor (coxib) RCT (from 1999 to 2007) of hip and knee OA was performed. Pain levels (visual analogue scale [VAS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) in the placebo groups at different measurement time points were extracted, expressed as weighted mean at weeks 2, 4, 6-8 and 12-13. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies included 3064 knee OA patients and 608 hip OA patients. For knee OA, pain (VAS) decreased from 15 mm at week 2, to 20 mm at week 6-8, and 21 mm at week 12-13. For hip OA patients, pain decreased by 12 mm, 14 mm and 14 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pain decreased in both knee and hip OA patients treated with placebo at 2 weeks, but further decreases up to week 12 occurred only in knee OA, especially for pain VAS, resulting in a time dependent impact on the magnitude of treatment outcome. Primary endpoint pain should be assessed at 2-4 weeks.

Recommendations for an update of the 2010 European regulatory guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and reflections about related clinically relevant outcomes: expert consensus statement.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society on Clinical and Economic aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) organised a working group to evaluate the need for updating the current European guideline on clinical investigation of drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Areas of potential attention were identified and the need for modifications, update or clarification was examined. Proposals were then developed based on literature reviews and through a consensus process. RESULTS: It was agreed that the current guideline overall still reflects the current knowledge in OA, although two possible modifications were identified. The first relates to the number and timing of measurements required as primary endpoints during clinical trials of symptom-relieving drugs, either drugs with rapid onset of action or slow acting drugs. The suggested modifications are intended to take into consideration the time related clinical need and expected time response to these drugs - i.e., a more early effect for the first category in addition to the maintenance of effect, a more continuous benefit over the long-term for the latter - in the timing of assessments. Secondly, values above which a benefit over placebo should be considered clinically relevant were considered. Based on literature reviews, the most consensual values were determined for primary endpoints of both symptom-relieving drugs (i.e., pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS)) and disease-modifying drugs (i.e., radiographic joint-space narrowing). CONCLUSIONS: This working document might be considered by the European regulatory authorities in a future update of the guideline for the registration of drugs in OA.

Republished: Value of biomarkers in osteoarthritis: current status and perspectives.

Osteoarthritis affects the whole joint structure with progressive changes in cartilage, menisci, ligaments and subchondral bone, and synovial inflammation. Biomarkers are being developed to quantify joint remodelling and disease progression. This article was prepared following a working meeting of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis convened to discuss the value of biochemical markers of matrix metabolism in drug development in osteoarthritis. The best candidates are generally molecules or molecular fragments present in cartilage, bone or synovium and may be specific to one type of joint tissue or common to them all. Many currently investigated biomarkers are associated with collagen metabolism in cartilage or bone, or aggrecan metabolism in cartilage. Other biomarkers are related to non-collagenous proteins, inflammation and/or fibrosis. Biomarkers in osteoarthritis can be categorised using the burden of disease, investigative, prognostic, efficacy of intervention, diagnostic and safety classification. There are a number of promising candidates, notably urinary C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type II and serum cartilage oligomeric protein, although none is sufficiently discriminating to differentiate between individual patients and controls (diagnostic) or between patients with different disease severities (burden of disease), predict prognosis in individuals with or without osteoarthritis (prognostic) or perform so consistently that it could function as a surrogate outcome in clinical trials (efficacy of intervention). Future avenues for research include exploration of underlying mechanisms of disease and development of new biomarkers; technological development; the 'omics' (genomics, metabolomics, proteomics and lipidomics); design of aggregate scores combining a panel of biomarkers and/or imaging markers into single diagnostic algorithms; and investigation into the relationship between biomarkers and prognosis.

Value of biomarkers in osteoarthritis: current status and perspectives.

Osteoarthritis affects the whole joint structure with progressive changes in cartilage, menisci, ligaments and subchondral bone, and synovial inflammation. Biomarkers are being developed to quantify joint remodelling and disease progression. This article was prepared following a working meeting of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis convened to discuss the value of biochemical markers of matrix metabolism in drug development in osteoarthritis. The best candidates are generally molecules or molecular fragments present in cartilage, bone or synovium and may be specific to one type of joint tissue or common to them all. Many currently investigated biomarkers are associated with collagen metabolism in cartilage or bone, or aggrecan metabolism in cartilage. Other biomarkers are related to non-collagenous proteins, inflammation and/or fibrosis. Biomarkers in osteoarthritis can be categorised using the burden of disease, investigative, prognostic, efficacy of intervention, diagnostic and safety classification. There are a number of promising candidates, notably urinary C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type II and serum cartilage oligomeric protein, although none is sufficiently discriminating to differentiate between individual patients and controls (diagnostic) or between patients with different disease severities (burden of disease), predict prognosis in individuals with or without osteoarthritis (prognostic) or perform so consistently that it could function as a surrogate outcome in clinical trials (efficacy of intervention). Future avenues for research include exploration of underlying mechanisms of disease and development of new biomarkers; technological development; the 'omics' (genomics, metabolomics, proteomics and lipidomics); design of aggregate scores combining a panel of biomarkers and/or imaging markers into single diagnostic algorithms; and investigation into the relationship between biomarkers and prognosis.