Efficacy and Safety of IV Sildenafil in the Treatment of Newborn Infants with, or at Risk of, Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN): A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of sildenafil added to inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) for newborn infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension of newborn (PPHN) or hypoxic respiratory failure (HRF) at risk of PPHN. STUDY DESIGN: Part A of a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Infants ≤96 hours' old, >34 weeks of gestation, receiving iNO (10-20 ppm on ≥50% FiO2) for PPHN or HRF at risk of PPHN, and oxygen index >15 to <60, were randomized (1:1) to intravenous (IV) sildenafil (loading: 0.1 mg/kg, over 30 minutes; maintenance: 0.03 mg/kg/h) or placebo, for up to 14 days. Coprimary end points were treatment failure rate (day 14/discharge) and time on iNO without treatment failure. Secondary end points included time on ventilation and oxygenation measures. RESULTS: Of 87 infants screened, 29 were randomized to IV sildenafil and 30 to placebo; 13 discontinued treatment (sildenafil, n = 6; placebo: n = 7), including 3 deaths (sildenafil: n = 2; placebo: n = 1). Treatment failure rates did not differ with sildenafil (27.6%) vs placebo (20.0%; P = .4935). Mean time on iNO was not different with sildenafil (4.1 days) vs placebo (4.1 days; P = .9850). No differences were noted in secondary end points. Most common adverse events (AEs) with sildenafil (≥10% infants) were hypotension (n = 8/29), hypokalemia (n = 7/29), anemia, drug withdrawal syndrome (n = 4/29, each), and bradycardia (n = 3/29). One serious AE (hypotension) was considered treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: IV sildenafil added to iNO was not superior to placebo in infants with PPHN or HRF at risk of PPHN. A review of AEs did not identify any pattern of events indicative of a safety concern with IV sildenafil. Infants will have developmental follow-up (Part B). TRIAL REGISTRATION CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01720524.

Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial.

AIMS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number NCT00346216.

Children's International Polyposis (CHIP) study: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of celecoxib in children with familial adenomatous polyposis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib versus placebo in the prevention and treatment of colorectal polyposis in children with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). METHODS: In this Phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial patients aged 10-17 years with FAP were randomized to celecoxib (16 mg/kg/day) or placebo for up to 5 years. Patients underwent annual assessments, including colonoscopies, to detect the time from randomization to the earliest occurrence of ≥20 polyps (>2 mm in size) or colorectal malignancy. The study was terminated early due to low rate of observed endpoints combined with a lower than expected enrollment rate. Descriptive results are provided. RESULTS: Of 106 randomized patients, 55 were treated with celecoxib (mean age 12.6 years; 52.7% female) and 51 were given placebo (mean age 12.2 years; 54.9% female). Disease progression (≥20 polyps, >2 mm in size) was observed in seven (12.7%) and 13 (25.5%) patients, respectively. The median time to disease progression was 2.1 years in the celecoxib group and 1.1 years for placebo. No patient developed colorectal cancer. The rate of adverse events (AEs) was similar in both groups (75.5% and 72.9%, respectively). Three patients in the celecoxib group (none in the placebo group) experienced serious AEs. CONCLUSION: In children with FAP, celecoxib was a well-tolerated treatment that was associated with a lower rate of colorectal polyposis and a longer time to disease progression compared with placebo. Due to the low rate of observed endpoints, the long-term impact of these results could not be ascertained.