Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, V116, in healthy adults: phase 1/2, randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, multicentre, US-based trial.

BACKGROUND: A pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) specifically focused on serotypes associated with adult residual disease burden is urgently needed. We aimed to assess V116, an investigational 21-valent PCV, that contains pneumococcal polysaccharides (PnPs), which account for 74-94% of invasive pneumococcal disease in adults aged 65 years or older. METHODS: We did a phase 1/2, randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, multicentre, non-inferiority and superiority trial. The phase 1 study was done at two clinical sites in the USA, and the phase 2 study was done in 18 clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were healthy adults with or without chronic medical conditions assessed as stable, aged 18-49 years in the phase 1 trial and aged 50 years or older in the phase 2 trial. Participants were excluded if they had a history of invasive pneumococcal disease or other culture-positive pneumococcal disease within the past 3 years, known hypersensitivity to a vaccine component, known or suspected impairment of immunological function, were pregnant or were breastfeeding, or had previously received any pneumococcal vaccine. Participants had to abstain from sexual activity or use protocol approved contraception. All participants were centrally randomly assigned to a vaccine group using an interactive response technology system. Participants and investigators were masked to group assignment. In phase 1, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a single dose of V116-1 (2 µg per pneumococcal polysaccharide [PnP] per 0·5 mL) or V116-2 (4 µg per PnP per 1·0 mL) or the 23-valent unconjugated PnP vaccine, PPSV23 (25 µg per PnP per 0·5 mL). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one dose of V116 (4 µg per PnP per 1·0 mL) or PPSV23 (25 µg per PnP per 0·5 mL), stratified by age. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants who received study vaccine; immunogenicity analyses were per protocol. For both phases, the primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with solicited injection-site adverse events and solicited systemic adverse events up to day 5 after vaccination and the proportion of participants with vaccine-related serious adverse events to 6 months after vaccination. In phase 2, primary immunogenicity outcomes were to test non-inferiority of V116 compared with PPSV23 as measured by serotype-specific opsonophagocytic antibody geometric mean titres (OPA-GMT) ratios for the serotypes common to the two vaccines at 30 days after vaccination (using a 0·33 margin) and to test superiority of V116 compared with PPSV23 as measured by serotype-specific OPA-GMT ratios for the serotypes unique to V116 at 30 days after vaccination (using a 1·0 margin). This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04168190. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6 and 26, 2019, 92 volunteers were screened and 90 (98%) enrolled for phase 1 (59 [66%] women; 31 [34%] men); 30 participants were assigned to each group and received study vaccine. 30 (100%) participants in the V116-1 group, 29 (97%) in the V116-2 group, and 30 (100%) participants in the PPSV23 group were included in the per-protocol immunogenicity evaluation. From Sept 23, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021, 527 volunteers were screened, and 510 (97%) participants were enrolled in the phase 2 trial. 508 participants (>99%; 254 [100%] of 254 participants randomly assigned to the V116 group and 254 [99%] of 256 randomly assigned to PPSV23 group) received study vaccine (281 [55%] women; 227 [45%] men). 252 (99%) of 254 of participants in the V116 group and 254 (99%) of 256 participants in the PPSV23 group were included in the primary immunogenicity analyses. There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events or vaccine-related deaths in either study phase. In both phases, the most common solicited injection site adverse event was injection site pain (phase 1 22 [73%] participants in V116-1 group, 23 [77%] participants in V116-2 group, and 17 [57%] participants in the PPSV23 group; phase 2 118 [46%] of 254 participants in the V116 group and 96 [38%] of 254 in the PPSV23 group]. The most common solicited systemic adverse events in phase 1 was fatigue (eight [27%] participants in the V116-1 group, eight [27%] participants in the V116-2 group, and five [17%] participants in PPSV23 group) and myalgia (eight [27%] participants in the V116-1 group, nine (30%) participants in the V116-2 group, and four (13%) participants in the PPSV23 group]. In phase 2, the most frequently reported solicited systemic adverse event was fatigue (49 [19%] participants in V116 group, and 31 [12%] participants in PPSV23 group). In both phases, most of the solicited adverse events in all vaccine groups were mild and of short duration (≤3 days). V116 met non-inferiority criteria compared with PPSV23 for the 12 shared serotypes and met superiority criteria compared to PPSV23 for the nine unique serotypes. INTERPRETATION: V116 was well tolerated with a safety profile generally similar to PPSV23; consistent with licensed pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Functional OPA antibodies were induced to all V116 vaccine serotypes. The vaccine was non-inferior to PPSV23 for the 12 serotypes common to both vaccines and superior to PPSV23 for the nine unique serotypes in V116. Our findings support the development of V116 for prevention of pneumococcal disease in adults. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

The value of a wound score for diabetic foot infections in predicting treatment outcome: a prospective analysis from the SIDESTEP trial.

Scoring the severity of a diabetic foot wound infection may help assess the severity, determine the type and urgency of antibiotic and surgical treatment needed, and predict clinical outcomes. We developed a 10-item diabetic foot infection wound score (results could range from 3 to 49 [least to most severe]) incorporating semi-quantitative grading of both wound measurements and various infection parameters. Using data from a prospective diabetic foot infection antibiotic trial (SIDESTEP), we evaluated the score's accuracy in predicting outcome, analyzed its components and tested it for consistency, construct, and validity. Wound scores for 371 patients significantly correlated with the clinical response; it was favorable at the follow-up assessment in 94.8% with a baseline score 19. Scores demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.70 to <0.95). Patients with more severe wounds had higher scores, supporting construct validity. Excluding scores for wound discharge (purulent and nonpurulent), leaving an eight-item score, provided better measurement statistics. This easily performed wound score appears to be a reliable, valid, and useful tool for predicting clinical outcomes. Further validation studies in different patient populations should refine the items included.

Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods. METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies. RESULTS: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29-0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: -5.0 and -12.0, -2.0 and -5.4, and -1.5 and -12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: -5.0 and -19.9 and -2.0 and -7.3) in second-line studies. CONCLUSION: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements.

Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers.

Clinical trial results provide the critical evidence base for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new medicines and medical products. Efficacy and safety may differ among population subgroups depending on intrinsic/extrinsic factors, including sex, age, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, and genetic background. Racial and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cardiovascular and other clinical trials. Although barriers to diversity in trials are well recognized, sustainable solutions for overcoming them have proved elusive. We investigated barriers impacting minority patients' willingness to participate in trials and-based on literature review and evaluation, and input from key stakeholders, including minority patients, referring physicians, investigators who were minority-serving physicians, and trial coordinators-formulated potential solutions and tested them across stakeholder groups. We identified key themes from solutions that resonated with stakeholders using a transtheoretical model of behavior change and created a communications message map to support a multistakeholder approach for overcoming critical participant barriers.

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study.

BACKGROUND: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051). INTERPRETATION: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin vs atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia: the VYTAL study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the recommended usual starting and next highest doses of ezetimibe/ simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, multicenter study (June 22 to December 7, 2005) consisted of adult patients randomized to the recommended usual starting (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 10 or 20 mg/d) or next highest (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d) doses. Efficacy end points included percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (primary) and proportion of patients attaining LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (secondary). RESULTS: A total of 1229 patients participated in the study. Significantly greater mean reductions were found in LDL-C levels with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d (-53.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -55.4% to -51.8%), than with atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (-38.3%; 95% CI, -40.1% to -36.5%; P < .001) or 20 mg/d (-44.6%; 95% CI, -46.4% to -42.8%; P < .001), and with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d (-57.6%; 95% CI, -59.4% to -55.8%), vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d (-50.9%; 95% CI, -52.7% to -49.1%; P < .001). Ezetimibe/simvastatin was also superior to atorvastatin in attainment of LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (P < .001 for all dose comparisons). Significantly better improvements with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin (P < or = .001) were observed for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Ezetimibe/ simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and triglyceride levels significantly more than atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (P = .02), with comparable reductions at other doses. Incidences of clinical adverse events, including serious drug-related and prespecified gastrointestinal-, gallbladder-, and hepatitis-related allergic reactions or rash events, and laboratory adverse events, including repeated elevation of hepatic transaminases or creatine kinase levels, were similar for both treatments. CONCLUSION: Ezetimibe/simvastatin provided additional lipid-modifying benefits over atorvastatin monotherapy at the recommended usual starting and next highest doses in patients with type 2 diabetes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

Rofecoxib 12.5 mg, rofecoxib 25 mg, and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis: results of two similarly designed studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of rofecoxib and celecoxib for the treatment of knee or hip OA over 6 weeks. METHODS: Two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomly assigned 3:3:3:1 in Study 1 to once daily (QD) rofecoxib 12.5 mg (N = 456), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 459), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 456), or placebo (N = 150) and 3:3:1 in Study 2 to QD rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 471), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 460), or placebo (N = 151). There was no rofecoxib 12.5 mg arm in Study 2. The primary outcome measure of both studies was pain at night over 6 weeks for rofecoxib 25 mg vs. celecoxib 200 mg. Efficacy comparisons with rofecoxib 12.5 mg in Study 1 were included as pre-specified study objectives but not as pre-specified study hypotheses. Secondary endpoints included Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks and over 1 week. Safety was evaluated through the assessment of spontaneously reported adverse experiences (AEs), evaluation of vital signs, and laboratory data reported by investigators and patients. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, reduction in pain at night over 6 weeks in Study 1 was not significantly different between active treatments; in Study 2 rofecoxib 25 mg significantly (p = 0.023) reduced pain at night compared with celecoxib 200 mg over 6 weeks. For the secondary endpoints, in both studies, significantly (p < 0.05) more patients treated with rofecoxib 25 mg than celecoxib 200 mg had a good or excellent PGART over 6 weeks, and over the first week (p < 0.01). In both studies, there were no significant differences between active medications in the incidence of reported overall, serious, or drug-related AEs. The reported AE rates with the active treatments were generally similar to those with placebo in the two studies. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 25 mg was significantly better than celecoxib 200 mg in relieving night pain at 6 weeks in one study; this was not confirmed in the accompanying study.

Changing characteristics of statin-related cIMT trials from 1988 to 2006.

OBJECTIVES: Changes in cIMT have not been consistently correlated with cardiovascular risk reduction in clinical studies. The variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) changes in published statin LDL-C-lowering studies in relation to various baseline and study characteristics was assessed. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of study-level data pooled from statin-treatment arms of 13 studies conducted during 1988-2006. Baseline mean common carotid artery (CCA)/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Potential relationships between prespecified covariates and cIMT changes were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels were higher in the combined studies conducted before year 2000 (0.8521 mm) than after 2000 (0.7458 mm), and somewhat higher in study populations of patients with coronary heart disease risk and those with greater LDL-C reductions. Mean CCA/cIMT changes were also larger for the studies conducted before 2000 (-0.0119 mm/year) than after 2000 (-0.0013 mm/year). Notably, studies conducted before 2000 were of longer duration (≥ 2 years) than after 2000 (<2 years). Heterogeneity in cIMT change was attributed to baseline and study-design characteristics. Longer study duration and greater LDL-C reductions were significantly related to larger annualized cIMT changes. Maximum cIMT results were similar. CONCLUSION: Baseline cIMT and LDL-C levels were lower, and cIMT changes were smaller in statin cIMT trials conducted after 2000 than those before 2000. These trends are consistent with increased treatment and control of high LDL-C levels over recent years in clinical practice, and may influence the results of cIMT studies.

Time-related trends in variability of cIMT changes in statin trials.

This brief article provides complementary data supporting the results reported in "Changing Characteristics of Statin-related cIMT Trials from 1988 to 2006" [1]. That article described time-related trends in baseline factors and study characteristics that may have influenced the variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) endpoints (mean of mean and maximum common carotid artery [CCA]/cIMT) in published statin trials. In this brief report, additional details for the studies included in the analysis, and further supporting data, including mean of the maximum CCA/cIMT changes and subgroup data (mean and maximum CCA/cIMT) are provided. For the analysis, study-level data was extracted from 17 statin cIMT trials conducted during 1988-2006, selected on the basis of having at least one statin monotherapy arm in the absence of mixed therapy, and baseline- and study-end values for mean mean and mean maximum CCA/cIMT endpoints. The baseline mean CCA/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Interestingly, all 8 studies conducted before 2000 were significant for cIMT change in which patients did not receive prior LLT; whereas after 2000, the results were more variable and in 4 of 6 trials that did not show a significant cIMT change, patients had received prior treatment. Baseline mean maximum cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized changes in studies conducted before 2000 were higher than those conducted after 2000, similar to the results reported in the original article for the mean mean cIMT endpoint. These findings were consistent across study populations of patients with CHD risk versus those without, and in studies with greater LDL-C reductions and with thickened baseline cIMT at study entry for both mean and maximum cIMT changes. Taken together, these results are consistent with trends in recent years toward greater use of lipid-lowering therapy and control of LDL-C that may have impacted the variability in the results of cIMT studies.

Effect on Fasting Serum Glucose Levels of Adding Ezetimibe to Statins in Patients With Nondiabetic Hypercholesterolemia.

Statin therapy is associated with a slightly increased risk of developing diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance in patients without diabetes. Ezetimibe combined with statins may be considered for high-risk patients who do not achieve optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering on statin monotherapy or who are statin intolerant. Changes in fasting serum glucose (FSG) levels during ezetimibe, ezetimibe/statin, and statin treatments were assessed using data pooled from clinical trials in hypercholesterolemic and heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemic patients, who were or were not receiving statin therapy. Study types included first-line trials in statin-naive/wash-out patients and second-line add-on and uptitration studies in patients on stable statin therapy. Similar analyses of FSG changes were performed separately for each study type in patients who were nondiabetic at baseline. Across all study types and treatments, mean FSG increases from baseline were small (0.5 to 3.7 mg/dl with ezetimibe/statin; 0.2 to 4.6 mg/dl with statins) and decreased over time; between-treatment differences (0.3 to 1.4 mg/dl) were nonsignificant for all comparisons. Proportions of patients with elevated FSG ≥126 mg/dl during therapy were low and similar for all treatments in the overall cohort (1.2% to 4.3%). Elevations were highest (3.3% to 25.7%) among patients with baseline factors characteristic of metabolic syndrome and prediabetes, including higher FSG, body mass index, and triglyceride levels, and numerically lower baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; however, these factors were not related to FSG increases. Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B were not significantly correlated with FSG increases. In conclusion, statin therapy was associated with small FSG increases, and the addition of ezetimibe did not further increase FSG levels beyond those of statins when given to patients who are statin naive or those on statin therapy.

The time to onset and overall analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the time to onset of analgesia of rofecoxib based on a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled, postoperative oral surgery pain studies. METHODS: A search on MEDLINE and of Merck data on file was conducted to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis inclusion criteria required that patients were treated with a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg when they experienced moderate or severe pain after surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars; study design involved patient randomization, double-blinding, and matching placebo, and onset data from individual patients were available. The meta-analysis of time to onset also required that studies used the two-stopwatch method. Eleven studies fulfilled the onset criteria and included patients who received a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 1220) or placebo (N = 483). These studies were analyzed to determine time to onset of analgesia, time to perceptible pain relief, percentage of patients achieving onset of analgesia, and duration of analgesia. Six of the 11 studies included a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (N = 303) and were included in the onset meta-analysis for comparison. The meta-analysis of overall efficacy also required that data on total pain relief scores over 8 hours were available. Over-all effectiveness of analgesia was based on analysis of 13 studies involving 1330 rofecoxib patients and 570 placebo patients on the endpoints of total pain relief scores over 8 hours and patient global assessment of response to therapy at 24 hours. Eight of the 13 studies with a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug comparator (N = 391) were included for the efficacy meta-analysis. RESULTS: Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups in each study. Median time to onset of analgesia for rofecoxib was 34 minutes (95% CI, 31-38 minutes), significantly faster than placebo, which did not achieve onset within the 4 hours the assessment was conducted (P < 0.001). Duration of analgesia for rofecoxib 50 mg was > 24 hours. Rofecoxib achieved a greater mean total pain relief score over 8 hours than placebo (17.4 versus 4.4; P < 0.001) and a greater patient response rate on patient global assessment of response to therapy at 24 hours than placebo (73% versus 16%; P < 0.001). Outcomes were similar between the rofecoxib group and the nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug group. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of over 1200 rofecoxib-treated patients, a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg demonstrated a rapid onset of analgesia in approximately half an hour combined with sustained effectiveness, supporting its use as a treatment of acute pain.

Gastrointestinal tolerability and effectiveness of rofecoxib versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity mediated by dual cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 inhibition of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can cause serious alterations of mucosal integrity or, more commonly, intolerable GI symptoms that may necessitate discontinuation of therapy. Unlike NSAIDs, rofecoxib targets only the COX-2 isoform. OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability of rofecoxib compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 600 office and clinical research sites. PATIENTS: 5557 patients (mean age, 63 years) with a baseline diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, hand, or spine. INTERVENTION: Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, or naproxen, 500 mg twice daily. Use of routine medications, including aspirin, was permitted. MEASUREMENTS: Discontinuation due to GI adverse events (primary end point) and use of concomitant medication to treat GI symptoms (secondary end point). Efficacy was determined by patient-reported global assessment of disease status and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, as well as discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. RESULTS: Rates of cumulative discontinuation due to GI adverse events were statistically significantly lower in the rofecoxib group than in the naproxen group (5.9% vs. 8.1%; relative risk, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92]; P = 0.005), as were rates of cumulative use of medication to treat GI symptoms (9.1% vs. 11.2%; relative risk, 0.79 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]; P = 0.014]). Subgroup analysis of patients who used low-dose aspirin (13%) and those who previously discontinued using arthritis medication because of GI symptoms (15%) demonstrated a relative risk similar to the overall sample for discontinuation due to GI adverse events (relative risk, 0.56 [CI, 0.31 to 1.01] and 0.53 [CI, 0.34 to 0.84], respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between treatments for efficacy in treating osteoarthritis or for occurrence of other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis treated for 12 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, was as effective as naproxen, 500 mg twice daily, but had statistically significantly superior GI tolerability and led to less use of concomitant GI medications. Benefits of rofecoxib in subgroup analyses were consistent with findings in the overall sample.

Fixed-dose combination ezetimibe+atorvastatin lowers LDL-C equivalent to co-administered components in randomized trials: use of a dose-response model.

Co-administration of ezetimibe with atorvastatin is a generally well-tolerated treatment option that reduces LDL-C levels and improves other lipids with greater efficacy than doubling the atorvastatin dose. The objective of the study was to demonstrate the equivalent lipid-modifying efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) ezetimibe/atorvastatin compared with the component agents co-administered individually in support of regulatory filing. Two randomized, 6-week, double-blind cross-over trials compared the lipid-modifying efficacy of ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 mg (n = 353) or 10/40 mg (n = 280) vs. separate co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 346) or 40 mg (n = 280), respectively, in hypercholesterolemic patients. Percent changes from baseline in LDL-C (primary endpoint) and other lipids (secondary endpoints) were assessed by analysis of covariance; triglycerides were evaluated by longitudinal-data analysis. Expected differences between FDC and the corresponding co-administered doses were predicted from a dose-response relationship model; sample size was estimated given the expected difference and equivalence margins (±4%). LDL-C-lowering equivalence was based on 97.5% expanded confidence intervals (CI) for the difference contained within the margins; equivalence margins for other lipids were not prespecified. Ezetimibe/atorvastatin FDC 10/20 mg was equivalent to co-administered ezetimibe+atorvastatin 20 mg in reducing LDL-C levels (54.0% vs. 53.8%) as was FDC 10/40 mg and ezetimibe+atorvastatin 40 mg (58.9% vs. 58.7%), as predicted by the model. Changes in other lipids were consistent with equivalence (97.5% expanded CIs <±3%, included 0); triglyceride changes varied more. All treatments were generally well tolerated. Hypercholesterolemic patients administered ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg FDC had equivalent LDL-C lowering. This FDC formulation proved to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

Variability of the LDL-C lowering response to ezetimibe and ezetimibe + statin therapy in hypercholesterolemic patients.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to treatment with ezetimibe + statins versus statins in hypercholesterolemic patients. METHODS: An analysis of patient-level data pooled from 27 double-blind, placebo and/or active-controlled studies in 21,671 patients treated with ezetimibe + statins versus statins on first-line (statin-naïve/wash-out) or second-line (on statin, randomized to ezetimibe versus placebo [add-on] or ezetimibe versus uptitrated statin [uptitrate]) for 6-24 wks. Variances (standard deviation [SD], coefficient of variation [CV], and root mean squared error [RMSE] adjusted for various factors) for % change from baseline in LDL-C were compared. RESULTS: In first-line and second-line add-on studies, the variability (SD, RMSE) of % change from baseline in LDL-C was lower in ezetimibe + statin-treated patients versus statin-treated patients, ±covariates. Differences were small but statistically significant due to the large sample size. In second-line uptitrate studies, ezetimibe + statin treatment resulted in greater unadjusted variability (SD) versus statin therapy, while the adjusted variability (RMSE) was significantly lower. Relative variability (CV=SD/mean) was lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statin therapy for all study types, being more pronounced in second-line add-on and uptitrate studies, attributed to larger mean LDL-C reductions for ezetimibe + statins versus statin groups. When assessed by individual study/type, statin brand, potency or dose, the CVs remained lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statins in second-line studies. The SDs showed no consistent trend for either therapy. CONCLUSION: In hypercholesterolemic patients, the absolute variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to ezetimibe + statins was not greater versus statins alone and appeared lower when adjusted for other factors. Relative variability was lower in patients treated with statins + ezetimibe. A better understanding of the variability of the LDL-C lowering response may help guide clinicians in making therapeutic decisions.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). INTERVENTIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated.

Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in the treatment of postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group. CONCLUSIONS: A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours.

Pain management in osteoarthritis: a focus on onset of efficacy--a comparison of rofecoxib, celecoxib, acetaminophen, and nabumetone across four clinical trials.

UNLABELLED: We compared onset of efficacy (during days 1 to 6) of 2 coxibs (rofecoxib, celecoxib) with acetaminophen and nabumetone by using a prespecified approach to data from 4 similarly designed 6-week randomized osteoarthritis trials. In 2 trials, rofecoxib (12.5 mg and 25 mg once daily) was compared with celecoxib (200 mg once daily) and acetaminophen (4000 mg daily). In the other 2 trials, rofecoxib (12.5 mg) was compared with nabumetone (1000 mg once daily) and placebo. Efficacy end points included Patient Global Response to Therapy and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index scores. Rofecoxib (12.5- and 25-mg doses) consistently demonstrated a faster onset of osteoarthritis (OA) efficacy than the comparator drugs during the first 6 days of therapy of OA patients experiencing "flare." Acetaminophen resulted in the slowest onset of efficacy. There was a strong correlation (0.7) between efficacy response during days 1 to 6 and that averaged over 6 weeks. Rates of discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy were significantly lower (P < .02) for each of the coxib-treated groups compared with acetaminophen and for rofecoxib 12.5 mg (P = .01) compared with nabumetone. Rofecoxib treatment, with its faster onset of OA efficacy and lower rates of related discontinuations, might provide efficacy advantages in the treatment of OA pain. PERSPECTIVE: The efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, nabumetone, and acetaminophen is established for the majority of OA patients within the first 6 days of therapy, and this predicts efficacy during the longer term. Rofecoxib provides significantly faster time to onset of efficacy and better improvement on multiple measures versus the comparators.

Tolerability and efficacy of dorzolamide versus acetazolamide added to timolol.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of dorzolamide versus acetazolamide when added to once daily 0.5% timolol maleate ophthalmic gel forming solution (timolol gel). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked, multicenter, active-controlled, parallel group study of 215 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Following a two-week treatment period with timolol gel, patients with IOP > or = 22 mm Hg and who tolerated one week of acetazolamide 250-mg q.i.d. either were randomized to acetazolamide or dorzolamide 2% three times daily for 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 155 randomized patients (dorzolamide, N = 80, acetazolamide, N = 75), compared to the dorzolamide, acetazolamide had a statistically greater number of systemic adverse events (dorzolamide 50%, acetazolamide 75%, p = 0.001), adverse events associated with carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI) therapy (dorzolamide 26%, acetazolamide 53%, p < 0.001) and discontinuations due to CAI adverse experiences (dorzolamide 8%, acetazolamide 24%, p = 0.007). Intent to treat analysis found that changes from baseline in IOP were similar at both troughs (dorzolamide 1.4 +/- 0.46 mm Hg, acetazolamide 0.8 +/- 0.47 mm Hg, p = 0.386). However, per-protocol analysis found statistically improved pressure control with acetazolamide (0.1 +/- 0.42 mm Hg) compared to dorzolamide (1.9 +/- 0.43 mm Hg) (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This study found a greater incidence of systemic and CAI adverse experiences and discontinuations due to acetazolamide compared to dorzolamide.

Achieving goal lipid levels with ezetimibe plus statin add-on or switch therapy compared with doubling the statin dose. A pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, statin titration, switching from statin monotherapy to a more potent statin or to ezetimibe/simvastatin. METHODS: A pooled analysis of patient-level data from 17 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies of 8667 hypercholesterolemic adults randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg added to ongoing statins, statin titration (doubling), or switching from ongoing statins to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or to ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 40 mg). Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was estimated by analysis of variance. Percent of patients who achieved LDL-C and other guideline-recommended targets, and target lipid levels by baseline distance to goal were evaluated. RESULTS: LDL-C percent change from baseline was -26.0 for ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, -27.6 for switching from ongoing statin to ezetimibe/simvastatin, -19.7 for switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg, and -9.7 for dose doubling of the ongoing statin. For patients within 0.8 mmol/L (30 mg/dL) of the target at baseline, LDL-C target attainment rates were 75.9% for adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin, 72.8% for switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin, 61.8% for switching to rosuvastatin, and 44.3% for statin dose-doubling. Similarly, improvements in other lipids and achievement of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B targets among this patient group were largest for ezetimibe added to ongoing statins and switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin; switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg and statin dose-doubling were less effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy appeared to be an effective option for patients who do not achieve lipid-lowering goals on statins alone.