A 4-week randomized study of acetaminophen extended-release vs rofecoxib in knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of acetaminophen extended-release (APAP ER) with rofecoxib for the management of pain associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Four hundred and three adult patients with moderate pain secondary to knee OA were randomized to receive APAP ER 1300 mg three times daily, rofecoxib 12.5mg once daily, or rofecoxib 25mg once daily. Primary end point was change from baseline at week 4 in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale score using a visual analog scale. This 4-week study was conducted at 23 US research sites from October 1999 to October 2000. RESULTS: APAP ER was noninferior to rofecoxib 12.5mg because the upper 95% confidence limit (CL) for the least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline (35.27 mm at week 4) did not exceed the prespecified noninferiority limit of 50mm. The upper CL (57.39 mm) exceeded the noninferiority limit for APAP ER compared with rofecoxib 25mg at week 4. There were no significant differences among groups in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: APAP ER 3900 mg daily was noninferior to rofecoxib 12.5mg daily, but noninferiority was not established to rofecoxib 25mg daily. APAP ER was well tolerated and no safety issues were identified. Based on the results of this study, APAP ER 3900 mg daily is an alternative to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as rofecoxib, in treating pain associated with knee OA.

Evaluating the adequacy of disease control in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a RAND appropriateness panel.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of agreement on assessing disease activity in patients with RA and determining when the RA treatment should be changed or continued. A panel of rheumatologists was convened to develop guidelines to assess adequacy of disease control, focusing on the use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. METHODS: The Research and Development/University of California in Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate disease control adequacy. After a literature review, 108 scenarios were developed to simulate situations most likely to be encountered in clinical practice and rated on a 9-point scale by a 10-member expert panel. RESULTS: Final appropriateness rankings for the scenarios were as follows: 37% 'appropriate', 48% 'inappropriate', and 16% 'neutral'. The panelists felt that patients with disease control in the 'appropriate' range have adequate control with their current therapy, whereas those in the 'inappropriate' range should be considered for a change in therapy. Those in 'neutral' areas should have their therapy reviewed carefully. The panelists recommended that the clinically active joint count should be considered the most important decision factor. In patients with no clinically active joints, regardless of other factors no change in therapy was felt to be warranted. Patients with five or more active joints should be considered inadequately treated, and in patients with one to four active joints other variables must be considered in the decision to change therapy. CONCLUSION: These preliminary guidelines will assist the clinician in determining when a patient's clinical situation warrants therapy escalation and when continuing the current regimen would be appropriate.