New-Onset Gout as an Independent Risk Factor for Returning to Dialysis After Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The causal relationship between gout and renal transplant outcomes is difficult to assess due to multiple interacting covariates. This study sought to estimate the independent effect of new-onset gout on renal transplant outcomes using a methodology that accounted for these interactions. METHODS: This study analyzed data on patients in the US Renal Data System (USRDS) who received a primary kidney transplant between 2008 and 2015. The exposure was new-onset gout, and the primary endpoint was returning to dialysis >12 months postindex date (transplant date). A marginal structural model (MSM) was fitted to determine the relative risk of new-onset gout on return to dialysis. RESULTS: 18 525 kidney transplant recipients in the USRDS met study eligibility. One thousand three hundred ninety-nine (7.6%) patients developed new-onset gout, and 1420 (7.7%) returned to dialysis >12 months postindex. Adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounders via the MSM showed new-onset gout was associated with a 51% increased risk of return to (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03-2.20). CONCLUSIONS: This finding suggests that new onset gout after kidney transplantation could be a harbinger for poor renal outcomes, and to our knowledge is the first study of kidney transplant outcomes using a technique that accounted for the dynamic relationship between renal dysfunction and gout.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of the Effect of Gout on Mortality Among Patients with a History of Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND Kidney transplantation is associated with increased prevalence of gout. However, evidence of the effect of gout on long-term kidney transplantation outcomes is mixed. This study examined mortality risk among patients with a history of kidney transplantation with vs. without gout. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective study was conducted using Medicare Fee-for-Service administrative claims of patients with a history of kidney transplantation. Cox proportional hazards models determined the effect of gout on all-cause mortality, controlling for confounders, including comorbid mortality risk, via the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Because the relationships between gout and components of the Charlson Comorbidity Index are also debated, 3 different model assumptions were used: 1) gout shares a common cause with these comorbidities, 2) gout is upstream of these comorbidities, 3) the effect of gout on mortality is modified by these comorbidities. RESULTS Gout increased the risk of all-cause mortality in the unadjusted model (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63) and after adjustment for demographics and transplant vintage (hazard ratio: 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.32). Gout was not a significant risk after adjustment for baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% CI 0.90-1.17). Gout was associated with greater mortality among patients without baseline comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index=0; hazard ratio: 3.48, 95% CI 1.27-9.57) in the stratified model. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with a history of kidney transplantation, gout did not have an independent effect on all-cause mortality. However, gout was a predictor of mortality among patients with no comorbidities, suggesting that gout is an early warning sign of poor health in kidney transplantation patients.

Immunosuppressant Use and Gout in the Prevalent Solid Organ Transplantation Population.

INTRODUCTION: Gout is a common comorbidity among solid organ transplantation patients and is usually attributed to the use of cyclosporine. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of gout among solid organ transplantation patients to determine the prevalence in the tacrolimus era. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: To what degree is cyclosporine still used among prevalent solid organ transplantation patients? How prevalent is gout in the solid organ transplantation population not being treated by cyclosporine? METHODS: Immunosuppressant regimens and gout prevalence among prevalent solid organ transplantation patients were assessed using retrospective claims data for a representative sample of commercially insured patients. For comparison to the prevalent solid organ transplantation population, immunosuppressant use at time of transplantation was compiled from published reports. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, the use of cyclosporine declined while use of tacrolimus increased, with greater cyclosporine use among prevalent versus incident solid organ transplantation patients. The prevalence of gout was 18.3%, 9.3%, and 9.1% for solid organ transplantation patients on cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and neither, respectively. Among all solid organ transplantation patients with gout, 66.6% and 21.5% were on tacrolimus versus cyclosporine. The prevalence of gout among noncyclosporine solid organ transplantation patients was significantly higher than in the general population without solid organ transplantation. DISCUSSION: Despite declining cyclosporine use, gout prevalence remains high, with the majority of patients with gout receiving tacrolimus rather than cyclosporine. In summary, gout remains a frequent comorbidity of solid organ transplantation.

Prevalence of Gout in the Surviving United States Solid Organ Transplantation Population.

PURPOSE: Although incidence and survival are frequent topics within the solid organ transplantation (SOT) literature, the size of the surviving SOT population is not well known. Existing studies of gout in patients with SOT have focused on the incident SOT population. This analysis was performed to characterize the prevalent SOT population and the prevalence of gout within it. METHODS: This study includes the 2017 United States (US) population size of recipients of kidney, heart, liver, and lung transplants that was estimated by combining primary transplant recipient cohort sizes (1988-2017) with previously published survival rates for each annual cohort's time since transplantation (0-29 years). Gout among prevalent patients with SOT was assessed using Medicare and commercial claims. RESULTS: A total of 637,231 US patients received a primary kidney (393,953), liver (142,186), heart (66,637), or lung (34,455) transplant between 1988 and 2017. An estimated 356,000 (55.8%) recipients were alive in 2017 (233,000 kidney; 78,700 liver; 29,300 heart; 14,700 lung). Gout was identified in 11% of prevalent patients with SOT in 2016. Higher rates of gout were seen in recipients of kidney (13.1%) and heart (12.7%) compared to recipients of liver (6.7%) and lung (5.6%) (P < .0001 in both datasets). Active diagnosed gout prevalence in the US population without a SOT history was 1.1% in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Hundreds of thousands of US patients are living with a transplanted organ today and these numbers are likely to increase. In patients with SOT, gout is a frequent comorbidity of which physicians should be aware. This study suggests a markedly higher rate of gout among transplant recipients compared to the general US population.

Gout Severity in Recipients of Kidney Transplant.

PURPOSE: This retrospective analysis of medical chart data was performed to compare severity and treatment of gout in patients with or without a history of kidney transplantation (KT). METHODS: Via an online survey, a panel of board-certified US nephrologists (N = 104) provided the following deidentified chart data for their 3 most recent patients with gout: age, sex, serum uric acid, numbers of swollen or tender joints, visible tophi, gout flare events (prior 12 months), gout drug treatment history, and KT history. The presence of "severe, uncontrolled gout" was defined as: serum uric acid ≥ 7.0 mg/dL, ≥1 tophi and ≥2 flares in the last 12 months, and history of xanthine oxidase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-five out of 312 (8.0%) gout patients had a history of KT. Univariate analysis found that patients with gout and history of kidney transplants had: greater prevalence of severe uncontrolled gout (27% vs 8%, P = .007) and tophi (36% vs 17%, P = .030), and higher rates of failure or physician perceived contraindication to allopurinol (44% vs 23%, P = .028). CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that gout in patients with history of KT is more severe and poses greater challenges to pharmacologic management. Although gout has been linked to worse outcomes among kidney recipients in the literature, there are presently no publications on gout severity among patients with KT in comparison to other patients with gout. Further investigation of disease severity and appropriate, effective treatment options in recipients of kidney transplant with a diagnosis of gout, especially prior to the transplant, is warranted.

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 4 week study.

OBJECTIVE: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are standard therapy for osteoarthritis (OA). Topically applied NSAIDs reduce systemic exposure compared with oral NSAIDS, and European guidelines recommend their use. The NSAID diclofenac is available in a range of topical formulations. Diclofenac 1% gel and 1.5% four times daily and 2% twice daily (BID) solutions are approved to reduce pain from OA of the knee(s). The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution BID versus vehicle control solution for treating pain associated with OA of the knee. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A phase II, 4 week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, two-arm, vehicle-controlled study compared pain relief with diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution versus control (vehicle only) in patients aged 40 to 85 years with radiographically confirmed primary OA of the knee. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01119898. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline to the final visit in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcomes included additional WOMAC subscales and patient global assessment of OA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), skin irritation, and vital signs were assessed and collected throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 260 patients randomized, 259 received ≥1 dose of study drug. Significantly greater reductions in least-squares mean (standard error) WOMAC pain scores were observed for diclofenac-treated (-4.4 [0.4]) versus vehicle-treated patients (-3.4 [0.4]) at the final visit (p = 0.040). The most commonly reported TEAEs were administration site conditions. The vehicle-treated group experienced slightly more TEAEs than the active treatment group (38.8% vs. 31.5%). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of diclofenac sodium 2% topical solution BID resulted in significantly greater improvement in pain reduction in patients with OA of the knee versus vehicle control and was generally well tolerated.

Improvement Thresholds for Morning Stiffness Duration in Patients Receiving Delayed- Versus Immediate-Release Prednisone for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Morning stiffness, a common patient reported symptom in rheumatoid arthritis, is associated with an increase in early morning inflammatory cytokines and significant disability. Little is known about categorical morning stiffness responses to glucocorticoid use in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Chronic pain threshold models have indicated previously that response rates of 15% to 30% indicate minimally important relief, 40% to 50% indicate substantial pain relief, and greater than 70% represents extensive pain relief. The objective of the present analysis was to assess differences in the percentages of patients achieving 25%(minimally important change), 50% (substantial change), and 75% (extensive change) reduction in the duration of patient-reported morning stiffness between patients receiving DR- and IR-prednisone in the Circadian Administration of Prednisone in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAPRA-1) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CAPRA-1 trial was a 12-week, double-blind study followed by an additional 9-month open-label extension. Patients in the CAPRA-1 trial were randomized to IR-prednisone in the morning or DR-prednisone at bedtime in addition to stable disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. After the double-blind phase, patients randomized to IR-prednisone (N =110) were switched to DR-prednisone and followed at 3, 6, and 9 months in an open-label extension phase. Patients originally randomized to DR-prednisone (N = 97) continued that therapy in the open-label extension. Patient morning stiffness diary entries from 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after each scheduled visit were analyzed over 1 year for threshold response. The number of patients reaching threshold response (25%, 50%, and 75% improvement) and time to morning stiffness response were examined. RESULTS: The DR-prednisone arm had significantly more responders in all three morning stiffness threshold response categories at the end of the double-blind period compared with IR-prednisone (p ≤ 0.05). Patients who switched from IR- to DR-prednisone in the open-label extension had comparable responses in all categories within 3 months and significantly shorter time to response versus patients already receiving DR-prednisone. DISCUSSION: DR-prednisone produced significantly higher morning stiffness response rates compared with IR prednisone, as defined by 25%, 50%, and 75% improvement thresholds, at week 12. The time to reach these thresholds was quicker with DR-prednisone, and patients who switched to DR-prednisone from IR-prednisone achieved responses comparable to the continuous DR-prednisone group over 9 months of therapy. This analysis is the first to assess time-to-event and percentage threshold morning stiffness responses to differently timed glucocorticoid therapy and propose clinically meaningful response rates in RA patients.

Onset and durability of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: Pooled results from two placebo trials of naproxen/esomeprazole combination and celecoxib.

OBJECTIVE: To further characterize time-to-first pain relief, effect size, correlations between various outcome measures and durability of relief for single-tablet naproxen 500 mg/esomeprazole 20 mg (NAP/ESO) given twice daily and celecoxib (CEL) (200 mg) given once daily versus placebo in knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Unpublished data from two double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials in which patients aged ≥ 50 years with knee OA were randomized to NAP/ESO (n = 487), CEL (n = 486) or placebo (n = 246) were pooled (NCT00664560 and NCT00665431). Acute response endpoints: 1) Time to first significant pain response, 2) Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 3) American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ) scores. Sustainability endpoints: 1) Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) and 2) WOMAC Stiffness, Pain and Total scores; and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 and 12 weeks. Effect sizes for all measures were calculated. Rescue pain medication use also was analyzed, as was the correlation of WOMAC to RAPID3. RESULTS: NAP/ESO produced statistically significant decreases in WOMAC Pain on Days 2-7 and at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05); most APS-POQ pain assessments with NAP/ESO were significantly improved on Days 2-7 compared with placebo (all p < 0.05). A good or excellent response occurred in a median of 6 days. RAPID3 and WOMAC total/stiffness/function/PGA scores decreased significantly at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Placebo-adjusted WOMAC pain effect sizes were 0.44, 0.34 and 0.25 at Day 7, week 6 and week 12, respectively. RAPID3 to WOMAC total and WOMAC pain to RAPID3: Pain scores were highly correlated at 6 and 12 weeks (correlation coefficients >0.80). No significant differences in overall responses were found between CEL and NAP/ESO. CONCLUSION: Naproxen/esomeprazole produced a significant absolute moderate early pain response, which was maintained for 12 weeks. RAPID3 was found to be highly correlated with the typical OA measure (WOMAC) and might be a useful clinical tool for measuring NSAID response. NCT00664560: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00664560, NCT00665431: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665431.

Onset and durability of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: pooled results from two placebo trials of naproxen/esomeprazole combination and celecoxib.

OBJECTIVE: To further characterize time-to-first pain relief, effect size, correlations between various outcome measures and durability of relief for single-tablet naproxen 500 mg/esomeprazole 20 mg (NAP/ESO) given twice daily and celecoxib (CEL) (200 mg) given once daily versus placebo in knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Unpublished data from two double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials in which patients aged ≥50 years with knee OA were randomized to NAP/ESO (n = 487), CEL (n = 486) or placebo (n = 246) were pooled (NCT00664560 and NCT00665431). Acute response endpoints: 1) Time to first significant pain response, 2) Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 3) American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ) scores. Sustainability endpoints: 1) Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) and 2) WOMAC Stiffness, Pain and Total scores; and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 and 12 weeks. Effect sizes for all measures were calculated. Rescue pain medication use also was analyzed, as was the correlation of WOMAC to RAPID3. RESULTS: NAP/ESO produced statistically significant decreases in WOMAC Pain on Days 2-7 and at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05); most APS-POQ pain assessments with NAP/ESO were significantly improved on Days 2-7 compared with placebo (all p < 0.05). A good or excellent response occurred in a median of 6 days. RAPID3 and WOMAC total/stiffness/function/PGA scores decreased significantly at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Placebo-adjusted WOMAC pain effect sizes were 0.44, 0.34 and 0.25 at Day 7, week 6 and week 12, respectively. RAPID3 to WOMAC total and WOMAC pain to RAPID3: Pain scores were highly correlated at 6 and 12 weeks (correlation coefficients >0.80). No significant differences in overall responses were found between CEL and NAP/ESO. CONCLUSION: Naproxen/esomeprazole produced a significant absolute moderate early pain response, which was maintained for 12 weeks. RAPID3 was found to be highly correlated with the typical OA measure (WOMAC) and might be a useful clinical tool for measuring NSAID response. NCT00664560: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00664560, NCT00665431: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665431.

Gastroprotective efficacy and safety of single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine vs ibuprofen in older persons.

OBJECTIVES: A combination tablet of ibuprofen 800 mg and famotidine 26.6 mg given three times daily is effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis and decreases the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers. This analysis evaluated the gastroprotective efficacy and safety of the single-tablet combination of ibuprofen/famotidine compared with ibuprofen alone on the basis of age and the presence of one or more risk factors for development of upper GI ulcer. METHODS: Pooled data from the 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group REDUCE-1 and REDUCE-2 trials were used. Endoscopies were performed in patients aged 40-80 years. The proportion of patients who developed ≥ 1 upper GI ulcer during treatment with ibuprofen/famotidine versus ibuprofen alone stratified on the basis of age (< 60 or ≥ 60 years) was evaluated. Further, analyses were performed on additional risk factors for ulcer development. RESULTS: Gastroprotective efficacy of the combination was not affected by age. Pooled results demonstrated statistically significantly fewer upper GI (10.0 vs 19.5%, p < 0.0001), gastric (8.9 vs 16.8%, p = 0.0004), and duodenal ulcers (1.1 vs 5.4%, p < 0.0001) in patients < 60 years treated with ibuprofen/famotidine versus ibuprofen alone compared with 12.9 vs 26.6% (p = 0.0002), 11.9 vs 23.4% (p = 0.0011), and 1.0 vs 4.5% (p = 0.0096), respectively, in patients ≥ 60 years. The ibuprofen/famotidine combination provided nearly 51 and 59% reduction in the risk of developing a GI ulcer in patients <60 years and ≥ 60 of age, respectively. Efficacy was maintained in the presence of additional risk factors, as well. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the fixed-combination of ibuprofen/famotidine provides gastroprotection in those of older age, with or without additional risk factors for the development of upper GI ulcers, as compared with ibuprofen alone. US National Institutes of Health registry, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00450658 and NCT00450216.

Bioequivalence of diclofenac sodium 2% and 1.5% topical solutions relative to oral diclofenac sodium in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Topical formulations of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are generally considered to be safer alternatives to oral NSAIDs due to lower systemic absorption. We conducted randomized, crossover studies that compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), bioequivalence and safety of topical diclofenac sodium 2% twice daily (BID), diclofenac sodium 1.5% four times daily (QID) and oral diclofenac sodium in healthy subjects. METHODS: The results of three bioequivalence studies are reviewed. Healthy adult subjects (n = 76) applied topical diclofenac sodium 2% solution (40.4 mg/2 mL) BID; or 1.5% solution (19.3 mg/40 drops) QID to each knee for 7.5 consecutive days separated by a washout period. Subjects (n = 22) in one study also received oral diclofenac sodium 75 mg BID for 7.5 days. Plasma diclofenac concentrations were determined from serial blood samples collected on Days 1 and 8 (steady state), and diclofenac PK parameters were estimated by noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: The studies demonstrated comparable bioequivalence between the 2% and 1.5% topical solutions as well as lower systemic exposure compared to oral dosing (approximately 93% less). Daily systemic exposure was comparable between the two formulations with only a 12% difference in the AUCss(0-24) (p = 0.140). Furthermore, both topical solutions demonstrated delayed elimination with a t(1/2) of 4- to 6-fold longer, as compared to oral diclofenac. The 2% solution provided more consistent dosing relative to the 1.5% solution when comparing AUCss(0-24) and Cmaxss across studies. Mild application site reactions were the most common treatment-emergent adverse event reported with topical diclofenac. CONCLUSIONS: The steady-state PK profile of topical diclofenac 2% solution administered BID is similar to that of the 1.5% solution administered QID. Systemic exposure to diclofenac is substantially lower after topical application as compared to oral administration. (Study 2 was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01202799; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=01202799&Search=Search).

Delays in Initiation of Disease-Modifying Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Data from a US-Based Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to evaluate how frequently rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy is instituted promptly and to describe the characteristics of patients who are not treated early upon diagnosis. METHODS: The percentage of patients who at the time of enrollment in the Corrona registry were not receiving any RA-directed therapy was evaluated and their characteristics were summarized. The time to subsequent initiation of any RA-directed therapy was also estimated. RESULTS: Among 35,485 patients enrolled in Corrona, 34,735 (97.9%) were on appropriate therapy for RA and 750 (2.1%) had no history of any RA-directed therapy at time of enrollment. Among patients without any history of RA-directed therapy, the overall disease duration was 5.5 ± 9.0 years, with only 50.7% of patients having early disease (duration ≤1 year). Patients with no history of directed RA therapy did not have lower disease activity at enrollment compared with those receiving therapy. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was 18.3 ± 15.0; 34% of patients had high and 27.6% moderate disease activity by CDAI. Patients were followed for a median (95% CI) time of 29.5 months (24.6-33.8). During the follow-up period, 372 out of 750 (49.6%) patients initiated RA-directed therapy. The median time to initiation of any RA-directed therapy was 12.1 months (95% CI 9.3-14.8). CONCLUSION: In this registry analysis, approximately 98% of patients were on appropriate RA therapy for their RA. However, a minority of patients with RA did not have a history of receiving disease-modifying therapy within a mean of approximately 5 years of RA onset and approximately 50% of them did not initiate any therapy within 12 months of registry follow-up. This delay in therapy did not appear to be related to a better controlled, or lower, RA disease activity state at the time of enrollment in the registry. FUNDING: Corrona, LLC.

One-year safety of ibuprofen/famotidine fixed combination versus ibuprofen alone: pooled analyses of two 24-week randomized, double-blind trials and a follow-on extension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of the fixed combination of ibuprofen and famotidine compared with ibuprofen alone from two 24-week, multicenter, double-blind trials designed to evaluate the comparative incidence of endoscopically documented upper gastrointestinal ulcers and a 28-week double-blind extension study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Safety was analyzed by pooling data from the two double-blind trials and the follow-on study. Safety was assessed by monitoring the incidence, causality, and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In the pivotal efficacy and safety trials, discontinuation rates due to any cause and dyspepsia were significantly lower for the ibuprofen/famotidine combination versus ibuprofen alone. Other than dyspepsia, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs of special interest were similar. Events judged to be treatment related were significantly lower with the ibuprofen/famotidine combination (20.6% vs. 25%). In the safety extension population, there were no differences in the discontinuation rates and the reporting of AEs or serious AEs (SAEs) between the two groups. Gastrointestinal-related events were similar between the groups. Incidence of cardiovascular-related AEs of special interest were 11% (ibuprofen/famotidine) and 2% (ibuprofen) (p=0.06), possibly due to a higher number of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the combination group. Of these, 80% were reports of hypertension (8% ibuprofen/famotidine vs. 2% ibuprofen). Three cases of hypertension in the ibuprofen/famotidine group were considered treatment related. The probability of a cardiovascular event decreased during days 112-167 of treatment and remained low with continued treatment. CONCLUSIONS: One-year safety data from two pivotal trials and a long-term extension study indicate that the ibuprofen/famotidine combination demonstrates a favorable gastrointestinal safety profile and more patients continued on therapy compared to ibuprofen alone. No new safety signals have been identified. These data offer additional evidence supporting a new therapeutic option to improve gastrointestinal safety and adherence for patients who require long-term ibuprofen.

One-year open-label safety evaluation of the fixed combination of ibuprofen and famotidine with a prospective analysis of dyspepsia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term safety of the single-tablet combination of ibuprofen 800 mg and famotidine 26.6 mg. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A phase 3b open-label study (NCT00984815) was conducted in 86 adults requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration for ≥12 months. The combination tablet of ibuprofen/famotidine was self-administered orally three times daily for up to 54 consecutive weeks. Adverse events (AEs) were collected beginning at the first dose and continued through completion (54 weeks). The Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) questionnaire was completed by patients to assess tolerability. RESULTS: Most patients (65%) finished the trial, with 76% contributing data at 6 months, and 21% withdrew due to adverse effects. Overall and gastrointestinal AE discontinuation rates (21% and 13%, respectively) were lower than that previously reported with ibuprofen 2400 mg given alone. Each of the SODA subscale scores demonstrated improvement by week 6 and improved statistically significantly at week 24 and week 54. Of the cardiovascular AEs, hypertension was reported most frequently (9/86, 9.3%), with 3.5% determined to be drug related. Twelve serious AEs were reported by 9 of 86 (10%) patients; two were considered possibly related to the study medication (unstable angina and gastric ulcer). There were no reports of serious gastrointestinal or CV complications. Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity and not considered drug related. CONCLUSIONS: These data, together with previously reported findings of a significant decrease in upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ulcer rate at 6 months, support the overall safety, compliance, and tolerability of this single-tablet formulation.

Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcers in patients with osteoarthritis receiving single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine versus ibuprofen alone: pooled efficacy and safety analyses of two randomized, double-blind, comparison trials.

BACKGROUND: Although anti-inflammatory doses of ibuprofen are very effective in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA), they come with an increased risk for gastrointestinal damage which can limit their use and decrease patient adherence to therapy. OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy and safety of an ibuprofen/famotidine fixed-dose tablet for reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcers compared with ibuprofen alone in OA patients. METHODS: Osteoarthritis patients from previously completed randomized, double-blind, comparison registration trials (REDUCE-1 and 2) which included a broad pain patient population, were pooled and analyzed for (1) the risk of endoscopically identified UGI ulcers over 24 weeks and (2) comparative pre-specified treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The primary outcomes were the comparative incidence of UGI, gastric, and duodenal ulcers and TEAEs in (1) the total OA population, (2) those aged ≥ 60 years, and (3) those on low dose aspirin. A total of 776 patients were randomized (safety population), and 713 were evaluable as the study population. RESULTS: Upper gastrointestinal ulcer risk was statistically significantly reduced with the fixed dose tablet compared with ibuprofen alone by 44% in the overall population, 55% in those aged ≥ 60 years and 65% in those on low dose aspirin. Individually, gastric and duodenal ulcers were also significantly reduced in all groups analyzed. Adverse events of special interest were generally similar between the 2 groups, with the exception of dyspepsia. Relative risk reduction for dyspepsia in the overall population was 40% and 55% in those aged ≥ 60 years. Patients not receiving low dose aspirin had a 49% relative risk reduction in dyspepsia. CONCLUSION: The fixed combination of ibuprofen/famotidine significantly reduced the risk for endoscopically documented gastrointestinal ulcers in OA patients and produced clinically meaningful reductions in patient reported dyspepsia compared with the ibuprofen alone.

Budget impact modeling for a single-tablet formulation of ibuprofen and famotidine for prevention of upper gastrointestinal ulcers in patients with osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the relief of signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis and to decrease the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers in patients taking ibuprofen for those indications. Currently, little is known about the cost impact of gastroprotective therapies, and an estimate of the financial consequences of adopting these therapies will be helpful to decision makers. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to review a model that evaluates the expected financial impact to US health care plans from the introduction of single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine into the chronic NSAID user population. METHODS: A budget impact model, considering a typical health plan of 1 million enrollees, was used to compare patients receiving: (1) single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine; (2) chronic NSAID treatment plus any GI-protective agent; and (3) chronic NSAID treatment without a GI-protective agent. RESULTS: The expected medication cost for single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine was $734,192 ($81,577 in year 1, $244,731 in year 2, and $407,884 in year 3), corresponding to a total per-member per-month cost of $0.020 ($0.007 in year 1, $0.020 in year 2, and $0.034 in year 3). Considering anticipated decreases in the use of other NSAIDs, the use of GI-protective agents, and GI complications, the total expected 3-year drug cost for single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine was offset by 50%, representing an estimated total budget impact of $364,396 or $0.010 per member per month. Sensitivity analyses of cost and market share variables and clinical and drug characteristics identified the most influential variables to be the cost of the drug and persistence to the ibuprofen/famotidine formulation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The expected decrease in treatment costs for less serious GI-related complications illustrates the benefits of single-tablet ibuprofen/famotidine as a gastroprotective therapy in patients receiving chronic NSAID treatment, with a modest financial impact on total health care costs.

Adalimumab induction therapy for Crohn disease previously treated with infliximab: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab, a fully human tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist, is an effective treatment for patients with Crohn disease who are naive to the chimeric TNF antagonist, infliximab. No anti-TNF agent has been evaluated prospectively in patients with Crohn disease who had responded to another anti-TNF agent and then lost that response or were intolerant of the agent. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adalimumab induces remissions more frequently than placebo in adult patients with Crohn disease who have symptoms despite infliximab therapy or who cannot take infliximab because of adverse events. DESIGN: 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (November 2004 to December 2005). SETTING: 52 sites in the United States, Canada, and Europe. PATIENTS: 325 adults 18 to 75 years of age who had a history of Crohn disease for 4 months or more that was moderate to severe at baseline (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score, 220 to 450 points). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive induction doses of adalimumab, 160 mg and 80 mg, at weeks 0 and 2, respectively, or placebo at the same time points. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was induction of remission at week 4. Decreases in CDAI score by 70 or more and 100 or more points (secondary end points) were also measured. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients completed the trial. Twenty-one percent (34 of 159) of patients in the adalimumab group versus 7% (12 of 166) of those in the placebo group achieved remission at week 4 (P < 0.001). The absolute difference in clinical remission rates was 14.2 percentage points (95% CI, 6.7 to 21.6 percentage points). A 70-point response occurred at week 4 in 52% (82 of 159) of patients in the adalimumab group versus 34% (56 of 166) of patients in the placebo group (P = 0.001). The absolute difference in 70-point response rates was 17.8 percentage points (CI, 7.3 to 28.4 percentage points). Two of 159 patients in the adalimumab group and 4 of 166 patients in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No patients in the adalimumab group and 4 of 166 patients in the placebo group had a serious infection. LIMITATIONS: The trial did not directly compare alternative active treatments and did not evaluate maintenance of response or long-term immunogenicity of adalimumab. CONCLUSION: Adalimumab induces remissions more frequently than placebo in adult patients with Crohn disease who cannot tolerate infliximab or have symptoms despite receiving infliximab therapy. For more information on adalimumab in Crohn disease, click here. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00105300.

Adalimumab for maintenance of clinical response and remission in patients with Crohn's disease: the CHARM trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adalimumab, a fully human, anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, in the maintenance of response and remission in patients with moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Patients received open-label induction therapy with adalimumab 80 mg (week 0) followed by 40 mg (week 2). At week 4, patients were stratified by response (decrease in Crohn's Disease Activity Index > or =70 points from baseline) and randomized to double-blind treatment with placebo, adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow), or adalimumab 40 mg weekly through week 56. Co-primary end points were the percentages of randomized responders who achieved clinical remission (Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150) at weeks 26 and 56. RESULTS: The percentage of randomized responders in remission was significantly greater in the adalimumab 40-mg eow and 40-mg weekly groups versus placebo at week 26 (40%, 47%, and 17%, respectively; P < .001) and week 56 (36%, 41%, and 12%, respectively; P < .001). No significant differences in efficacy between adalimumab eow and weekly were observed. More patients receiving placebo discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (13.4%) than those receiving adalimumab (6.9% and 4.7% in the 40-mg eow and 40-mg weekly groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who responded to adalimumab, both adalimumab eow and weekly were significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining remission in moderate to severe CD through 56 weeks. Adalimumab was well-tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous experience with the drug.

Effects of celecoxib and naproxen on renal function in nonazotemic patients with cirrhosis and ascites.

Nonselective inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX) by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs frequently induces renal failure in decompensated cirrhosis. Studies in experimental cirrhosis suggest that selective inhibitors of the inducible isoform COX-2 do not adversely affect renal function. However, very limited information is available on the effects of these compounds on renal function in human cirrhosis. This investigation consists of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial aimed at comparing the effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg every 12 hours for a total of 5 doses) on platelet and renal function and the renal response to furosemide (40 mg intravenously) with those of naproxen (500 mg every 12 hours for a total of 5 doses) and placebo in 28 patients with cirrhosis and ascites. A significant reduction (P < .05) in glomerular filtration rate (113 +/- 27 to 84 +/- 22 mL/min), renal plasma flow (592 +/- 158 to 429 +/- 106 mL/min) and urinary prostaglandin E(2) excretion (3430 +/- 430 to 2068 +/- 549 pg/min) and suppression of the diuretic (urine volume: 561 +/- 128 to 414 +/- 107 mL/h) and natriuretic (urine sodium: 53 +/- 13 to 34 +/- 10 mEq/h) responses to furosemide were observed in the group of patients treated with naproxen but not in the other two groups. Naproxen, but not celecoxib or placebo, significantly inhibited platelet aggregation (72% +/- 8% to 47% +/- 8%, P < .05) and thromboxane B(2) production (41 +/- 12 to 14 +/- 5 pg/mL, P < .05). In conclusion, our results indicate that short-term administration of celecoxib does not impair platelet and renal function and the response to diuretics in decompensated cirrhosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term safety of this drug in cirrhosis.

The COX-2 selective inhibitor, valdecoxib, does not impair platelet function in the elderly: results of a randomized controlled trial.

The effects of the new cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor, valdecoxib (40 mg bid; n = 17), on platelet function were evaluated, along with ibuprofen (800 mg tid; n = 15) and placebo (n = 15), in healthy elderly subjects (65-85 years) in this 7.5-day, randomized, single-center, double-blind study. Platelet aggregation (to sodium arachidonate, collagen, and adenosine diphosphate), bleeding time, and serum thromboxane B2 (TxB2) concentrations were measured up to 8 hours postdose on Days 1 and 8. Valdecoxib had no platelet effects, while ibuprofen significantly decreased platelet aggregation, significantly increased bleeding time (2-4 h postdose on each day), and significantly decreased TxB2 levels at all time points. In conclusion, unlike ibuprofen, valdecoxib 40 mg bid spares platelet COX-1 function in healthy elderly subjects. Valdecoxib's lack of effect on platelet aggregation and bleeding time suggests that it will have an improved clinical profile over nonselective NSAIDs, particularly in patients for whom bleeding complications are a concern.