Ibuprofen/acetaminophen fixed-dose combination as an alternative to opioids in management of common pain types.

Opioids are frequently used first line to manage acute pain in a variety of settings; however, the use of nonprescription analgesics for acute pain is recognized by experts as a practical and effective opioid-sparing strategy. Variations in dosages and formulations and a lack of standardization in reporting clinical data hinder the awareness of nonprescription treatments and recommendation of their use before opioids and other prescription options. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of two common nonprescription analgesics, ibuprofen (IBU) and acetaminophen (APAP), is an appealing alternative to opioids in acute pain settings with a range of potential benefits. This narrative review evaluates the evidence in support of IBU/APAP FDCs containing IBU (≤1200 mg/day) and APAP (≤4000 mg/day), the nonprescription maximum daily doses in Canada and the United States, as alternatives to opioids and as a means to reduce the need for rescue opioid medication in acute pain management. A literature search was performed to identify clinical studies that directly compared IBU/APAP FDCs with opioids or nonopioids and measured the need for opioid rescue therapy in acute pain. Across studies, IBU/APAP FDCs consistently demonstrated pain relief similar to or better than opioid and nonopioid comparators and reliably reduced the use of rescue opioids with fewer adverse events. Based on these data, healthcare clinicians should consider FDC nonprescription analgesics as a potential first-line option for the management of acute pain.

The growing trend of opioid-sparing treatment demands effective nonopioid pain management solutions. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ibuprofen and acetaminophen (IBU/APAP) has shown promise as an alternative to opioids in a range of pain management scenarios, but the available data are limited and can be difficult to compare across studies. In this review, the authors performed a comprehensive evaluation of the clinical studies that assessed the use of IBU/APAP FDCs as a means to prevent or decrease the use of opioids for patients with acute pain. In the included studies, IBU/APAP FDCs consistently and safely provided pain relief that could replace or reduce the need for opioids across a range of procedures. This manuscript can serve as a resource for healthcare clinicians when considering the use of IBU/APAP FDC treatments for acute pain management.

Pain management recommendations during the progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19, an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2, had a devastating impact on people's lives. The pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems and impacted the care of patients, including those with pain. This narrative review aims to highlight the challenges in managing pain and fever resulting from COVID-19 and pre-existing conditions, and to discuss the role of over the counter analgesics as a key part of the COVID-19 treatment regimen. As most patients with COVID-19 are being managed in the outpatient setting, lifestyle interventions and over the counter analgesics are readily available options to effectively treat pain and fever, which can help to decrease the burden on the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 is an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The COVID-19 pandemic not only affects patient lives, but also heavily impacts healthcare systems. This review aims to discuss the available literature on how to manage pain from COVID-19 and encourage a consensus meeting for recommendations. As most patients with COVID-19 are being managed in the outpatient setting, lifestyle interventions and over the counter analgesics are readily available options to effectively treat pain and fever, which can help to decrease the demand on the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Use of analgesics/antipyretics in the management of symptoms associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccines are effective and important to control the ongoing pandemic, but vaccine reactogenicity may contribute to poor uptake. Analgesics or antipyretic medications are often used to alleviate vaccine side effects, but their effect on immunogenicity remains uncertain. Few studies have assessed the effect of analgesics/antipyretics on vaccine immunogenicity and reactogenicity. Some studies revealed changes in certain immune response parameters post-vaccination when analgesics/antipyretics were used either prophylactically or therapeutically. Still, there is no evidence that these changes impact vaccine efficacy. Specific data on the impact of analgesic/antipyretic medications on immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines are limited. However, available data from clinical trials of licensed vaccines, along with recommendations from public health bodies around the world, should provide reassurance to both healthcare professionals and vaccine recipients that short-term use of analgesics/antipyretics at non-prescription doses is unlikely to affect vaccine-induced immunity.

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in COVID-19.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, anecdotal reports emerged suggesting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase susceptibility to infection and adversely impact clinical outcomes. This narrative literature review (March 2020-July 2021) attempted to clarify the relationship between NSAID use and COVID-19 outcomes related to disease susceptibility or severity. Twenty-four relevant publications (covering 25 studies) reporting original research data were identified; all were observational cohort studies, and eight were described as retrospective. Overall, these studies are consistent in showing that NSAIDs neither increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection nor worsen outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This is reflected in current recommendations from major public health authorities across the world, which support NSAID use for analgesic or antipyretic treatment during COVID-19. Thus, there is no basis on which to restrict or prohibit use of these drugs by consumers or patients to manage their health conditions and symptoms during the pandemic.

Treatment with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared with once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized double-blind study.

UNLABELLED: Once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and once-weekly risedronate 35 mg are indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. These two agents were compared in a 12-month head-to-head trial. Greater gains in BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover were seen with alendronate compared with risedronate with similar tolerability. INTRODUCTION: The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate, are available in once-weekly (OW) formulations for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A 12-month, head-to-head study was performed to compare these agents in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low BMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1053 patients from 78 U.S. sites were randomized to OW alendronate 70 mg (N = 520) or risedronate 35 mg (N = 533), taken in the morning after fasting. Endpoints included BMD changes over 6 and 12 months at the hip trochanter, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (LS); percent of patients with predefined levels of change in trochanter and LS BMD at 12 months; and change in biochemical markers of bone turnover at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by adverse experience (AE) reporting. RESULTS: Significantly greater increases in hip trochanter BMD were seen with alendronate (3.4%) than risedronate (2.1%) at 12 months (treatment difference, 1.4%; p < 0.001) as well as 6 months (treatment difference, 1.3%; p < 0.001). Significantly greater gains in BMD were seen with alendronate at all BMD sites measured (12-month difference: total hip, 1.0%; femoral neck, 0.7%; LS, 1.2%). Significant differences were seen as early as 6 months at all sites. A greater percentage of patients had > or =0% (p < 0.001) and > or =3% (p < 0.01) gain in trochanter and spine BMD at 12 months with alendronate than risedronate. Significantly greater (p < 0.001) reductions in all biochemical markers of bone turnover occurred with alendronate compared with risedronate by 3 months. No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal AEs or AEs causing discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-month, head-to-head trial of alendronate and risedronate, given in accordance with the approved OW regimens for treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, alendronate produced greater gains in BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover than risedronate. The greater antiresorptive effect of alendronate was seen as early as 3 months, and the tolerability profiles were similar.

Prevalence of Vitamin D inadequacy among postmenopausal North American women receiving osteoporosis therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations and factors related to vitamin D inadequacy in postmenopausal North American women receiving therapy to treat or prevent osteoporosis. METHODS: Serum 25(OH)D and PTH were obtained in 1536 community-dwelling women between November 2003 and March 2004. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for suboptimal (<30 ng/ml) 25(OH)D. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of study subjects were Caucasian, with a mean age of 71 yr. Thirty-five percent resided at or above latitude 42 degrees north, and 24% resided less than 35 degrees north. Mean (sd) serum 25(OH)D was 30.4 (13.2) ng/ml: serum 25(OH)D was less than 20 ng/ml in 18%; less than 25 ng/ml in 36%; and less than 30 ng/ml in 52%. Prevalence of suboptimal 25(OH)D was significantly higher in subjects who took less than 400 vs. 400 IU/d or more vitamin D. There was a significant negative correlation between serum PTH concentrations and 25(OH)D. Risk factors related to vitamin D inadequacy included age, race, body mass index, medications known to affect vitamin D metabolism, vitamin D supplementation, exercise, education, and physician counseling regarding vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of North American women receiving therapy to treat or prevent osteoporosis have vitamin D inadequacy, underscoring the need for improved physician and public education regarding optimization of vitamin D status in this population.

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.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-month study of once-weekly alendronate oral solution for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the overall safety and tolerability of once-weekly (OW) alendronate 70 mg oral solution (OS) versus OW placebo OS. METHODS: Postmenopausal, osteoporotic women were enrolled at 51 centers in the United States in a 6-month double-blind, randomized trial. Patients were randomized (1:1) to OW alendronate 70 mg OS or placebo OS. The primary end point was the proportion of patients reporting any upper gastrointestinal (UGI) adverse event (AE) at 6 months. Secondary end points included mean percentage change in urinary N-telopeptide of type I human collagen (NTx) and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) at 6 months. RESULTS: Initially, 454 women were enrolled; 392 (86.3%) completed the study. The mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10) years, and the mean (SD) time since menopause was 19.1 (12) years. The proportion of patients experiencing any UGI AE was significantly higher with alendronate OS (23.7%) compared with placebo solution (15.3%), with a treatment difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 0.8%-15.8%; P = 0.024). The proportion of patients experiencing any esophageal AE was 4.0% with alendronate and 3.0% with placebo (treatment difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -2.7% to 4.8%]). In addition, 4.5% of alendronate and 8.7% of placebo patients discontinued the study due to any clinical AE, and 3.3% of alendronate and 1.8% of placebo patients discontinued due to a UGI AE (difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -1.5% to 4.4%]). Alendronate OS produced significantly greater reductions in both NTx and BSAP than placebo (differences, -47.5% and -38.7%, respectively [both, P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month study, patients receiving OW alendronate 70 mg OS had a higher rate of UGI AEs than placebo patients. However, rates of serious UGI AEs, discontinuations due to UGI AEs, and esophageal AEs were similar between groups. UGI AEs in the study were generally mild to moderate in severity and did not result in treatment discontinuation. In addition, OW alendronate 70 mg OS significantly reduced biochemical markers of bone turnover.

Tolerability of once-weekly alendronate in patients with osteoporosis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract tolerability of once-weekly oral alendronate, 70 mg, and placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The first patient initiated treatment on June 5, 2000, and the last patient completed treatment on March 1, 2001. The study enrolled 450 postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis (224 took alendronate, 226 took placebo) who were ambulatory and community dwelling at 48 outpatient study centers in the United States. By design, approximately half of the patients were naive to bisphosphonates. The primary end point was upper GI tract tolerability based on the incidence of any upper GI tract adverse events. Secondary end points included the number of discontinuations due to drug-related upper GI tract adverse events and the change from baseline in bone resorption, assessed by the urinary N-telopeptide-creatinine ratio at 12 weeks. A subgroup analysis of the primary and secondary end points was performed on the patients stratified by prior bisphosphonate use. The safety and tolerability of the weekly alendronate and placebo regimens were captured as clinical and laboratory adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 11% of the alendronate patients and 13% of the placebo patients reported an upper GI tract adverse event. Discontinuations due to drug-related upper GI tract adverse events occurred in 3% of alendronate patients and 1% of placebo patients. The differences between the treatment groups for the primary and secondary end points were not significant. For the primary end point, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was well within the prespecified 14% comparability bound (-2.2%; 95% confidence interval, -8.3% to 3.9%). The overall incidence of upper GI tract adverse events was lower in the subgroup of patients with prior bisphosphonate exposure (8%) than in those who were bisphosphonate naive (16%). However, regardless of prior bisphosphonate exposure, the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events was similar between the alendronate and placebo patients. The urinary N-telopeptide-creatinine ratio showed a significant decrease in the alendronate patients (72% of baseline, P<.001) compared with a slight increase in the placebo patients (106% of baseline) at week 12. CONCLUSION: In this 3-month study, the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events in patients treated with once-weekly alendronate, 70 mg, was comparable to that with placebo.

Once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and raloxifene 60 mg daily in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly (OW) alendronate (ALN) 70 mg and raloxifene (RLX) 60 mg daily in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. DESIGN: This 12-month, randomized, double-blind study enrolled 456 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (223 ALN, 233 RLX) at 52 sites in the United States. Efficacy measurements included lumbar spine (LS), total hip, and trochanter bone mineral density (BMD) at 6 and 12 months, biochemical markers of bone turnover, and percent of women who maintained or gained BMD in response to treatment. The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline in LS BMD at 12 months. Adverse experiences were recorded to assess treatment safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Over 12 months, OW ALN produced a significantly greater increase in LS BMD (4.4%, P < 0.001) than RLX (1.9%). The percentage of women with > or = 0% increase in LS BMD (ALN, 94%; RLX, 75%; P < 0.001) and > or =3% increase in LS BMD (ALN, 66%; RLX, 38%; P < 0.001) were significantly greater with ALN than RLX. Total hip and trochanter BMD increases were also significantly greater (P < or =0.001) with ALN. Greater (P < 0.001) reductions in N-telopeptide of type I collagen and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase were achieved with ALN compared with RLX at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal or vasomotor adverse experiences were seen. CONCLUSION: ALN 70 mg OW produced significantly greater increases in spine and hip BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover than RLX over 12 months. A greater percentage of women maintained or gained BMD on ALN than RLX. Both medications had similar safety and tolerability profiles.

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.

Patient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Alendronate, an oral bisphosphonate, is available for the treatment of osteoporosis in a 70-mg once-weekly and a 10-mg once-daily formulation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine patient preference for once-weekly versus once-daily dosing with alendronate, and to determine which treatment regimen the patients believed was more convenient and would be easier to comply with for a long period. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, preference study in which postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were enrolled to receive 9 weeks of treatment in crossover fashion (4 weeks with each study regimen separated by a 1-week washout period). The study regimens included once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and once-daily alendronate 10 mg. The primary and secondary end points were assessed with a questionnaire completed by the patient. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded to assess patient tolerability of the study medications. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients met the eligibility requirements; 288 were randomized to treatment, 287 (mean age, 64.8 years) received treatment, 272 completed the questionnaire, and 266 completed the study. Of the patients who completed the questionnaire, 235 patients preferred the 70-mg once-weekly dosing regimen compared with the 10-mg once-daily regimen (86.4% vs 9.2%; P < 0.001). Most patients also believed that once-weekly dosing was more convenient than once-daily dosing (89.0% vs 7.7%; P < 0.001) and would allow them to achieve better long-term compliance (87.5% vs 8.5%; P < 0.001). Clinical AEs were reported in 30.7% of patients treated with once-weekly alendronate and 30% of patients treated with once-daily alendronate, with no significant differences between treatments. CONCLUSION: When once-weekly alendronate 70 mg was compared with once-daily alendronate 10 mg in this study, 70-mg once-weekly alendronate was the preferred dosing regimen.

A randomized controlled study comparing rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo in post-bunionectomy pain.

OBJECTIVE: The relative efficacy of rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo were compared in the treatment of acute pain after bunionectomy surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, two-part study of 252 patients with moderate-to-severe pain the day after first metatarsal bunionectomy. Patients were treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 85), enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 100 mg (N = 85), or placebo (N = 82) on study Day 1 (Part I), and subsequently with daily rofecoxib 50 mg or placebo (diclofenac patients switched to placebo) over study Days 2-5 (Part II). Patients rated their pain at 16 time points over the first 24 h. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 8 h (TOPAR8). Pre-specified secondary endpoints on Day 1 included onset of analgesia, peak pain relief, and duration of response. For Part II, supplemental analgesia use with rofecoxib compared to placebo was pre-specified for analysis over Days 2-5, with the focus on Days 2-3. Adverse experiences were recorded over Days 1-5. RESULTS: For TOPAR8 scores, rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo (9.5 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001) and diclofenac (9.5 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001). Onset of analgesia was more rapid with rofecoxib than placebo (p = 0.003) and diclofenac (p = 0.019); proportion of patients achieving onset within 4 h with rofecoxib, diclofenac, and placebo was 46%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Peak pain relief was greater with rofecoxib (1.8) than diclofenac (1.2, p = 0.004) and placebo (1.0, p < 0.001). Diclofenac and placebo patients required supplemental analgesia sooner than rofecoxib patients (2:03 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001 and 1:41 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001). Rofecoxib patients used significantly less (p < 0.001) supplemental analgesia than placebo patients over Days 2-3 (1.1 tablets/day vs. 2.1 tablets/day) and Days 2-5 (0.9 tablets/day vs. 1.8 tablets/day). No significant differences in adverse experiences between treatments were seen. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all measures of treatment of post-bunionectomy pain. Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than diclofenac sodium 100 mg based on Day 1 endpoints of total pain relief, onset time, and duration of response. All study medications were generally well tolerated.

Comparison of rofecoxib and a multidose oxycodone/ acetaminophen regimen for the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg with a single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h as well as with a multidose regimen of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg followed by oxycodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg over 24 h. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, two-phase study, patients with moderate to severe pain after surgical extraction of >or= 2 third molars, including one mandibular impaction, were treated with rofecoxib 50 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg (singledose phase) followed by 5/325 mg every 6h as needed (multidose phase), or placebo. Patients rated their pain relief and intensity at 18 time points over 24 h. Efficacy was measured over 6 and 24 h by total pain relief (TOPAR), sum of pain intensity difference (SPID), and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Primary endpoint for the single dose comparison was TOPAR over 6 h; SPID was the key 24-h endpoint. Onset of analgesic effect, peak analgesic single dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen. effect, and duration of analgesic effect were also evaluated. Adverse experiences were recorded. RESULTS: 271 patients were randomized to treatment with rofecoxib (n = 121), oxycodone/acetaminophen (n = 120), or placebo (n = 30). For the single dose comparison, rofecoxib-treated patients achieved pain relief at least as effective as oxycodone/acetaminophentreated patients as assessed by TOPAR6 (12.9 vs 11.3, 95% CI on difference = [-0.1, 3.2], p = 0.059). Patients also rated a single dose of rofecoxib as at least as effective as multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h on SPID24 (21.9 vs 18.1, 95% CI on difference = [-1.0, 8.8], p = 0.122). Patients treated with oxycodone/ acetaminophen had a shorter time to onset of analgesia than patients treated with rofecoxib (24 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). Patients in the active treatment groups achieved similar peak effects during the single-dose phase. Individuals treated with rofecoxib demonstrated a longer duration of analgesic effect than those treated with a Patients on active treatment demonstrated better efficacy than patients on placebo on these prespecified endpoints (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Fewer rofecoxib than oxycodone/acetaminophen patients experienced adverse events (47.9 vs 75.8%, p < 0.001), including nausea (19.0 vs 42.5%, p < 0.001), vomiting (9.9 vs 24.2%, p < 0.01), and dizziness (7.4 vs 31.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg achieved an overall analgesic effect at least as effective as patients treated with a single-dose of oxycodone/acetaminophen 10/650 mg over 6 h and multidose oxycodone/acetaminophen over 24 h, with fewer adverse experiences of nausea (p < 0.001), vomiting (p < 0.01), and dizziness (p < 0.001).

Comparison of change in bone resorption and bone mineral density with once-weekly alendronate and daily risedronate: a randomised, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of alendronate (ALN) 70 mg once weekly (OW) and risedronate (RIS) 5 mg daily between-meal dosing on biochemical markers of bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 3-month, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a double-blind extension to 12 months. The study enrolled 549 postmenopausal women (ALN 219, RIS 222 and placebo (PBO) 108) who were > or =60 years of age at outpatient centres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was reduction in urine N-telopeptides of type 1 collagen (NTx) corrected for creatinine level at 3 months. Secondary parameters included change in BMD at the spine and hip at 6 and 12 months, NTx at 1, 6 and 12 months, and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Adverse experiences (AEs) were recorded throughout the study for an assessment of treatment safety profiles and tolerability. RESULTS: Over 3 months, ALN produced a significantly greater mean reduction in urine NTx than did RIS (-52% vs -32%, p < 0.001), which was maintained at 12 months. ALN produced a significantly greater mean BMD increase than did RIS at 6 months, and it was maintained at 12 months at the lumbar spine (4.8% vs 2.8%, p < 0.001) and total hip (2.7% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), as well as at the trochanter and femoral neck. Significant reductions in BSAP with ALN compared to RIS were maintained over the 12 months of treatment. Study size did not allow for meaningful assessment of differences in fracture rates. Tolerability was generally similar between ALN, RIS and PBO, and the incidence of upper GI AEs causing discontinuation and oesophageal AEs was similar in the ALN and RIS groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, ALN 70 mg OW produced a 50% greater reduction in bone resorption as measured by urine NTx and significantly greater increases in lumbar spine and hip BMD than did RIS 5 mg daily. The treatments had similar safety profiles and were generally well-tolerated. Additional studies are needed comparing OW ALN with OW RIS, which became available after the commencement of the present study.

Tolerability of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel for osteoarthritis in seniors and patients with comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a dose-related risk of cardiovascular, renal, and gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). Topical NSAIDs produce lower systemic NSAID exposure compared with oral NSAIDs, offering potential benefits. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel (DSG) for knee and hand osteoarthritis (OA) in older and younger patients and in patients with versus without comorbid hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of pooled data from 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving 1426 patients (aged ≥35 years) with mild to moderate OA of the knee and 783 patients (aged ≥40 years) with mild to moderate OA of the hand. Patients applied 4 g of DSG or vehicle to affected knees QID for 12 weeks or 2 g of DSG or vehicle to affected hands QID for 8 weeks. RESULTS: In patients with knee OA, the percentage with ≥1 adverse event was similar in patients aged <65 years (56.6%) versus ≥65 years (55.8%) and was similar in patients with versus without comorbid hypertension (53.4% vs 59.0%, respectively), type 2 diabetes mellitus (50.0% vs 57.2%), or cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease (53.8% vs 56.5%). In patients with hand OA, the percentage with ≥1 AE was similar in patients aged ≥65 years (42.7%) versus <65 years (39.1%) and was similar in patients with versus without hypertension (39.6% vs 41.7%, respectively), lower in patients with versus without type 2 diabetes mellitus (28.0% vs 41.6%), and higher in patients with versus without cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease (48.5% vs 39.2%). Gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal AEs were rare and did not differ according to age or comorbidity. Application site reactions were the primary cause for the greater frequency of AEs with DSG versus vehicle. CONCLUSION: The similar and low rates of AEs in DSG-treated patients aged ≥65 years and <65 years and in those with and without comorbid hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cerebrovascular or cardiovascular disease suggest that DSG treatment is generally well tolerated.

Treatment of patients with osteoarthritis with rofecoxib compared with nabumetone.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib and nabumetone were developed to provide gastrointestinal benefits over traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, there is limited comparative information relating to these 2 drugs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare rofecoxib and nabumetone, at their lower, recommended doses, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Nine hundred seventy-eight patients with knee OA and a positive history of NSAID response were randomized to 12.5 mg rofecoxib per day (N=390), nabumetone 500 mg twice a day (N=392), or placebo (N=196) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was percent of patients with a "good" or "excellent" Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) at week 6; PGART was also evaluated over days 1 to 6. Additional end points included investigator assessment of response, pain walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, joint tenderness, discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy, and quality of life. Adverse experiences (AEs) were collected. RESULTS: Significantly more rofecoxib (50.4%) than nabumetone (43.3%, P=0.043) or placebo (29.5%, P<0.001) patients had a good or excellent PGART at week 6. Median time to a good or excellent PGART was significantly shorter with rofecoxib (52 hours) than nabumetone (100 hours, P=0.001) or placebo (>124 hours, P<0.001). Results for rofecoxib and nabumetone were similar in all additional end points except pain in walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, in both of which the rofecoxib treatment group demonstrated better results. There were significantly (P<0.050) more overall and serious AEs and discontinuations resulting from AEs with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Five rofecoxib and one nabumetone patients had confirmed thrombotic cardiovascular events (P=0.123). Information on thrombotic cardiovascular events from this study was included in a published, prespecified pooled analysis and is included here for completeness. CONCLUSIONS: At their recommended starting doses for OA, both agents were more effective than placebo. Rofecoxib at a dosage of 12.5 mg demonstrated significantly better efficacy in PGART than 1000 mg nabumetone in these patients known to be NSAID responders. Significantly more AEs occurred with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Considering these data and other recent safety information regarding cyclooxygenase-2 selective and nonselective NSAIDS, physicians must make risk/benefit assessments for each individual patient when considering the use of these agents, as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A combined analysis of the VACT studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy among 1578 patients with osteoarthritis randomized to take acetaminophen 4000 mg (n=269), celecoxib 200 mg (n=523), rofecoxib 12.5 mg (n=259), or rofecoxib 25 mg (n=527) in a double blind trial [Vioxx, Acetaminophen, Celecoxib Trial (VACT2)]. Results were also pooled with the similarly designed VACT1 trial. METHODS: Patients evaluated over Days 1 to 6 and 6 weeks with Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index. RESULTS: For VACT2, median time to good or excellent PGART response was 6, 5, 4, and 3 days for acetaminophen, celecoxib, rofecoxib 12.5 mg, and rofecoxib 25 mg (COX-2 inhibitors vs acetaminophen, p

Pharmacological and therapeutic properties of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor therapy in HIV-infected patients.

Boosted protease inhibitor regimens combine ritonavir with a second, 'boosted' protease inhibitor to enhance patient exposure to the latter agent, thereby preventing or overcoming resistance and allowing less frequent dosing, potentially improving adherence. The advantages offered by ritonavir boosting are primarily attributable to the drug's pharmacokinetic properties. Ritonavir's inhibition of the cytochrome P-450 CYP3A4 enzyme reduces the metabolism of concomitantly administered protease inhibitors and changes their pharmacokinetic parameters, including area under the curve (AUC), maximum concentration (Cmax), minimum concentration (Cmin) and half-life (t1/2). As a result, the bioavailability of the boosted protease inhibitor is increased and improved penetration into HIV reservoirs may be achieved. Boosted protease inhibitor regimens that utilize a low dose of ritonavir (100-200 mg) appear to offer the best balance of efficacy and tolerability. At this dose, ritonavir boosts the bioavailability of the second protease inhibitor without contributing significantly to the side effect profile of the regimen. In clinical trials, regimens boosted with low dose ritonavir have demonstrated high levels of viral suppression in both antiretroviral naïve patients and patients who previously failed antiretroviral therapy, including protease inhibitor therapy. Side effects observed have generally been similar to those associated with the boosted protease inhibitor. Based upon their enhanced drug exposure and demonstrated efficacy, the boosted ritonavir regimens should be among the first options considered for use in clinical practice.

Pharmacokinetics of indinavir and ritonavir administered at 667 and 100 milligrams, respectively, every 12 hours compared with indinavir administered at 800 milligrams every 8 hours in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients on nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors with HIV RNA at <1,000 copies/ml were randomized in an open-label study to administration of combined indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/RTV) at 667/100 mg every 12 h (q12h) or IDV alone at 800 mg q8h to determine the regimens' pharmacokinetics. On day 14, plasma IDV and RTV levels were determined over 24 h. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetics (minimum concentration of drug in serum [C(min)], area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h [AUC(0-24)], and maximum concentration of drug in serum [C(max)]) were expressed as geometric mean values with 90% confidence intervals (CI). The primary hypothesis was that the lower bound of the protocol-specified 90% CI for the geometric mean C(min) ratio of the combination compared to IDV alone regimen would be >/=2. Twenty-seven patients were enrolled, and 24 (15 male; average age, 42 years) completed the study. The C(min), AUC(0-24), and C(max) for IDV/RTV compared to IDV alone were 1,511 versus 250 nM, 119,557 versus 77,034 nM . h, and 10,428 versus 10,407 nM, respectively. Corresponding relationships for IDV/RTV compared to IDV alone were a 6.0-fold increase in C(min) (90% CI, 4.0, 9.3), an increase in AUC(0-24) (1.5-fold, 90% CI, 1.2, 2.0), and no increase in C(max). Adverse events were similar and generally mild, with no cases of nephrolithiasis. The geometric mean ratio of IDV C(min) for IDV/RTV compared to IDV was at least 2 by a lower bound of the 90% CI, satisfying the primary hypothesis. The C(max) was not increased, suggesting an IDV/RTV 667/100-mg toxicity profile may be similar to that of unboosted IDV.