Greater reduction of knee than hip pain in osteoarthritis treated with naproxen, as evaluated by WOMAC and SF-36.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the improvement of hip and knee osteoarthritis during treatment with naproxen. METHODS: Men and women aged 40 to 75 years with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee or hip of at least three months' duration participated in a six week placebo controlled, double blind study with naproxen 500 mg twice daily as one treatment arm. Naproxen was given to 403 patients (280 knee, 123 hip) and placebo to 108 patients (75 knee, 33 hip). WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index) 3.1 visual analogue scale and SF-36 (36 item short form health survey) were used to assess response to treatment between baseline and week 6. RESULTS: There were no differences at baseline between knee and hip osteoarthritis for any of the WOMAC subscales or SF-36 domains. Improvement was between 4 and 7 mm greater for knee than for hip for all WOMAC subscales (pain, delta = 4.7 mm (p = 0.03); stiffness, delta = 6.6 mm (p = 0.004); function, delta = 4.8 mm (p = 0.06)). Effect size was about 0.8 for all WOMAC subscales for the knee and between 0.5 and 0.6 for the hip. Knee patients treated with naproxen improved 4.6 (p = 0.033) more than hip patients for SF-36 bodily pain and 10.3 (p = 0.014) more for SF-36 role-physical. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with knee osteoarthritis improved more with naproxen treatment than patients with hip osteoarthritis, as monitored by WOMAC and the SF-36 domains bodily pain and role-physical. These findings warrant further investigation and strongly suggest that efficacy of treatment of osteoarthritis of knee and hip should be evaluated separately.

A randomised, placebo controlled, comparative trial of the gastrointestinal safety and efficacy of AZD3582 versus naproxen in osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the gastrointestinal safety and efficacy of the COX inhibiting nitric oxide donator AZD3582 in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: 970 patients were randomised (7:7:2) to AZD3582 750 mg twice daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily in a double blind study. The primary end point was the six week incidence of endoscopic gastroduodenal ulcers (diameter > or =3 mm). Overall damage measured on the Lanza scale was a secondary end point. Safety and tolerability assessments included endoscopic upper gastrointestinal erosions and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS). Efficacy was primarily assessed by WOMAC. RESULTS: The incidence of ulcers with AZD3582 was 9.7% and with naproxen 13.7% (p = 0.07, NS), v 0% on placebo. The incidence of Lanza scores >2 was higher with naproxen (43.7%) than with AZD3582 (32.2%) (p<0.001). Compared with baseline, significantly fewer ulcers and erosions developed in stomach and stomach/duodenum combined, and fewer erosions developed in stomach, duodenum, and both combined on AZD3582 than on naproxen. GSRS reflux and abdominal pain subscale scores were lower for AZD3582 than for naproxen but there was no difference for indigestion, constipation, and diarrhoea. AZD3582 was as effective as naproxen at improving WOMAC scores. Both agents were well tolerated, with no significant effects on blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: At doses with similar efficacy in relieving osteoarthritis symptoms, the primary end point of six week endoscopic gastroduodenal ulcer incidence was not significantly different between AZD3582 and naproxen. Most secondary endoscopic gastrointestinal end points favoured AZD3582.