Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment on COVID-19 vaccine response in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the first-line treatment for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and reduces vaccine-induced immunity. We evaluated if a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination improved antibody response against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHOD: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, superiority trial in secondary-care rheumatology and dermatology clinics in 26 hospitals in the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases taking methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months, who had received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised validated computer program, to temporarily suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination or continue treatment as usual. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after COVID-19 booster vaccination and was assessed masked to group assignment. All randomly assigned patients were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN11442263; following a pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDING: Between Sept 30, 2021, and March 7, 2022, we screened 685 individuals, of whom 383 were randomly assigned: to either suspend methotrexate (n=191; mean age 58·8 years [SD 12·5], 118 [62%] women and 73 [38%] men) or to continue methotrexate (n=192; mean age 59·3 years [11·9], 117 [61%] women and 75 [39%] men). At 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 25 413 U/mL (95% CI 22 227-29 056) in the suspend methotrexate group and 12 326 U/mL (10 538-14 418) in the continue methotrexate group with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·08 (95% CI 1·59-2·70; p<0·0001). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases enhanced antibody responses after COVID-19 booster vaccination that were sustained at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. There was a temporary increase in inflammatory disease flares, mostly self-managed. The choice to suspend methotrexate should be individualised based on disease status and vulnerability to severe outcomes from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Hormone replacement therapy (conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene) for post-menopausal women with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis: primary report from the HOPE-e randomised, placebo-controlled, feasibility study.

Background: Symptomatic hand osteoarthritis is more common in women than in men, and its incidence increases around the age of menopause, implicating oestrogen deficiency. No randomised controlled trials of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have been done in people with hand osteoarthritis. We aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a form of HRT (conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene) in post-menopausal women with painful hand osteoarthritis. Methods: The HOPE-e feasibility study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, for which we recruited women aged 40-65 years, for whom 1-10 years had passed after their final menstrual period, with definite hand osteoarthritis and at least two painful hand joints. Participants were recruited across three primary or secondary care sites and from the community and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene or placebo, orally once every day for 24 weeks, before weaning for 4 weeks until the end of the study. The primary feasibility outcomes were rates of identification, recruitment, randomisation, retention, and compliance of eligible participants, and the likelihood of unmasking. The secondary objective was to generate proof-of-concept quantitative and qualitative data on the acceptability of proposed clinical outcomes for a full trial and adverse events. We used an intention-to-treat analysis, and criteria for progression to a full trial were pre-defined as recruitment of at least 30 participants across all sites in 18 months; a dropout rate of less than or equal to 30% of randomised individuals; and acceptability to the majority of participants, including acceptable rates of adverse events. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the recruitment window was reduced to 12-15 months. A proportionately reduced minimum sample size of 22 was judged to be sufficient to test feasibility. This trial was registered at ISRCTN, ISRCTN12196200. Findings: From May 9, 2019 to Dec 31, 2020, 434 enquiries or referrals were received. We did 96 telephone pre-screens; of the 35 eligible participants, seven were excluded as ineligible at the telephone or face-to-face screening and 28 (80% [95% CI 63-92]) were randomly assigned. Of the 406 who were not randomly assigned, 250 (62%) were ineligible (with contraindicated medications accounting for 50 [20%] of these), 101 (25%) did not respond to further enquiries, and 55 (14%) chose not to proceed (with the most common reason being not wanting to take a hormone-based drug). All 28 randomised participants completed all follow-up assessments with high compliance and outcome measure completeness. All three adverse event-related treatment withdrawals were in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported. Participants and investigators were successfully masked (participant Bang's blinding index placebo group 0·50 [95% CI 0·25-0·75]). The trial met the prespecified criteria for progression to a full trial. Interpretation: This first-ever feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of HRT for post-menopausal women with painful hand osteoarthritis met its progression criteria, although it was not powered to detect a clinical effect. This outcome indicates that a full trial of an HRT in this population is feasible and acceptable and identifies potential refinements with regard to the design of such a trial. Funding: Research for Patient Benefit programme, National Institute for Health Research.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment versus continued treatment on COVID-19 booster vaccine immunity in adults with inflammatory conditions (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive treatments inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated whether a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine booster improved antibody responses against the S1 receptor-binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHODS: We did an open-label, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial in 26 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults from rheumatology and dermatology clinics who had been diagnosed with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis with or without arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and systemic lupus erythematosus) and who were taking low-dose weekly methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months. Participants also had to have received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. We randomly assigned the participants (1:1), using a centralised validated computer randomisation program, to suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after their COVID-19 booster (suspend methotrexate group) or to continue treatment as usual (continue methotrexate group). Participants, investigators, clinical research staff, and data analysts were unmasked, while researchers doing the laboratory analyses were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine dose, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCT, ISRCTN11442263; following the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDINGS: Between Sept 30, 2021 and March 3, 2022, we recruited 340 participants, of whom 254 were included in the interim analysis and had been randomly assigned to one of the two groups: 127 in the continue methotrexate group and 127 in the suspend methotrexate group. Their mean age was 59·1 years, 155 (61%) were female, 130 (51%) had rheumatoid arthritis, and 86 (34%) had psoriasis with or without arthritis. After 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 22 750 U/mL (95% CI 19 314-26 796) in the suspend methotrexate group and 10 798 U/mL (8970-12 997) in the continue methotrexate group, with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·19 (95% CI 1·57-3·04; p<0·0001; mixed-effects model). The increased antibody response in the suspend methotrexate group was consistent across methotrexate dose, administration route, type of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, age, primary vaccination platform, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were no intervention-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: A 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment for people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases resulted in enhanced boosting of antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination. This intervention is simple, low-cost, and easy to implement, and could potentially translate to increased vaccine efficacy and duration of protection for susceptible groups. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Effects of temporarily suspending low-dose methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster on vaccine response in immunosuppressed adults with inflammatory conditions: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial and nested mechanistic substudy (Vaccine Response On/Off Methotrexate (VROOM) study).

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown if a temporary break in long-term immune-suppressive treatment after vaccination against COVID-19 improves vaccine response. The objective of this study was to evaluate if a 2-week interruption in low-dose weekly methotrexate treatment after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters enhances the immune response compared with continuing treatment in adults with autoimmune inflammatory conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An open-label, pragmatic, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial with internal feasibility assessment and nested mechanistic substudy will be conducted in rheumatology and dermatology clinics in approximately 25 UK hospitals. The sample size is 560, randomised 1:1 to intervention and usual care arms. The main outcome measure is anti-spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody level, collected at prebooster (baseline), 4 weeks (primary outcome) and 12 weeks (secondary outcome) post booster vaccination. Other secondary outcome measures are patient global assessments of disease activity, disease flares and their treatment, EuroQol 5- dimention 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported adherence with advice to interrupt or continue methotrexate, neutralising antibody titre against SARS-CoV-2 (mechanistic substudy) and oral methotrexate biochemical adherence (mechanistic substudy). Analysis of B-cell memory and T-cell responses at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 will be investigated subject to obtaining additional funding. The principal analysis will be performed on the groups as randomised (ie, intention to treat). The difference between the study arms in anti-spike RBD antibody level will be estimated using mixed effects model, allowing for repeated measures clustered within participants. The models will be adjusted for randomisation factors and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Leeds West Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (REC reference: 21/HRA/3483, IRAS 303827). Participants will be required to give written informed consent before taking part in the trial. Dissemination will be via peer review publications, newsletters and conferences. Results will be communicated to policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11442263.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic agents have established efficacy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated whether bevacizumab could improve disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting after resection of the primary tumour. METHODS: For the open-label, randomised, controlled QUASAR 2 trial, which was done at 170 hospitals in seven countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with WHO performance status scores of 0 or 1 who had undergone potentially curative surgery for histologically proven stage III or high-risk stage II colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days followed by a break for 7 days) or the same regimen of oral capecitabine plus 16 cycles of 7·5 mg/kg bevacizumab by intravenous infusion over 90 min on day 1 of each cycle. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated schedule with use of minimisation with a random element stratified by age, disease stage, tumour site, and country. The study was open label and no-one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxic effects were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45133151. FINDINGS: Between April 25, 2005, and Oct 12, 2010, 1952 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 1941 had assessable data (968 in the capecitabine alone group and 973 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group). Median follow-up was 4·92 years (IQR 4·00-5·16). Disease-free survival at 3 years did not differ between the groups (75·4%, 95% CI 72·5-78·0 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group vs 78·4%, 75·7-80·9 in the capecitabine alone group; hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·89-1·25, p=0·54). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (201 [21%] of 963 in the capecitabine alone group vs 257 [27%] of 959 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group) and diarrhoea (102 [11%] vs 104 [11%]), and, with the addition of bevacizumab, expected increases were recorded in all-grade hypertension (320 [33%] vs 75 [8%]), proteinuria (197 [21%] vs 49 [5%]), and wound healing problems (30 [3%] vs 17 [2%]). 571 serious adverse events were reported (221 with capecitabine alone and 350 with capecitabine and bevacizumab). Most of these were gastrointestinal (n=245) or cardiovascular (n=169). 23 deaths within 6 months of randomisation were classified as being related to treatment, eight in the capecitabine alone group and 15 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine in the adjuvant setting for colorectal cancer yielded no benefit in the treatment of an unselected population and should not be used. FUNDING: Roche.

A candidate gene study of capecitabine-related toxicity in colorectal cancer identifies new toxicity variants at DPYD and a putative role for ENOSF1 rather than TYMS.

OBJECTIVE: Capecitabine is an oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) pro-drug commonly used to treat colorectal carcinoma and other tumours. About 35% of patients experience dose-limiting toxicity. The few proven genetic biomarkers of 5-FU toxicity are rare variants and polymorphisms, respectively, at candidate loci dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) and thymidylate synthase (TYMS). DESIGN: We investigated 1456 polymorphisms and rare coding variants near 25 candidate 5-FU pathway genes in 968 UK patients from the QUASAR2 clinical trial. RESULTS: We identified the first common DPYD polymorphisms to be consistently associated with capecitabine toxicity, rs12132152 (toxicity allele frequency (TAF)=0.031, OR=3.83, p=4.31×10(-6)) and rs12022243 (TAF=0.196, OR=1.69, p=2.55×10(-5)). rs12132152 was particularly strongly associated with hand-foot syndrome (OR=6.1, p=3.6×10(-8)). The rs12132152 and rs12022243 associations were independent of each other and of previously reported DPYD toxicity variants. Next-generation sequencing additionally identified rare DPYD variant p.Ala551Thr in one patient with severe toxicity. Using functional predictions and published data, we assigned p.Ala551Thr as causal for toxicity. We found that polymorphism rs2612091, which lies within an intron of ENOSF1, was also associated with capecitabine toxicity (TAF=0.532, OR=1.59, p=5.28×10(-6)). ENSOF1 is adjacent to TYMS and there is a poorly characterised regulatory interaction between the two genes/proteins. Unexpectedly, rs2612091 fully explained the previously reported associations between capecitabine toxicity and the supposedly functional TYMS variants, 5'VNTR 2R/3R and 3'UTR 6 bp ins-del. rs2612091 genotypes were, moreover, consistently associated with ENOSF1 mRNA levels, but not with TYMS expression. CONCLUSIONS: DPYD harbours rare and common capecitabine toxicity variants. The toxicity polymorphism in the TYMS region may actually act through ENOSF1.

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. METHODS: For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). INTERPRETATION: The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Genetic markers of toxicity from capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based regimens: investigation in the QUASAR2 study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Fluourouracil (FU) is a mainstay of chemotherapy, although toxicities are common. Genetic biomarkers have been used to predict these adverse events, but their utility is uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We tested candidate polymorphisms identified from a systematic literature search for associations with capecitabine toxicity in 927 patients with colorectal cancer in the Quick and Simple and Reliable trial (QUASAR2). We then performed meta-analysis of QUASAR2 and 16 published studies (n = 4,855 patients) to examine the polymorphisms in various FU monotherapy and combination therapy regimens. RESULTS: Global capecitabine toxicity (grades 0/1/2 v grades 3/4/5) was associated with the rare, functional DPYD alleles 2846T>A and *2A (combined odds ratio, 5.51; P = .0013) and with the common TYMS polymorphisms 5'VNTR2R/3R and 3'UTR 6bp ins-del (combined odds ratio, 1.31; P = 9.4 × 10(-6)). There was weaker evidence that these polymorphisms predict toxicity from bolus and infusional FU monotherapy. No good evidence of association with toxicity was found for the remaining polymorphisms, including several currently included in predictive kits. No polymorphisms were associated with toxicity in combination regimens. CONCLUSION: A panel of genetic biomarkers for capecitabine monotherapy toxicity would currently comprise only the four DPYD and TYMS variants above. We estimate this test could provide 26% sensitivity, 86% specificity, and 49% positive predictive value-better than most available commercial kits, but suboptimal for clinical use. The test panel might be extended to include additional, rare DPYD variants functionally equivalent to *2A and 2846A, though insufficient evidence supports its use in bolus, infusional, or combination FU. There remains a need to identify further markers of FU toxicity for all regimens.

Phase III randomized trial assessing rofecoxib in the adjuvant setting of colorectal cancer: final results of the VICTOR trial.

PURPOSE: Laboratory and case-control studies suggest a pivotal role for the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis. The purpose of this study was to test whether the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib could reduce recurrence and improve survival when administered in the adjuvant setting of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had undergone potentially curative surgery and completion of adjuvant therapy for stage II and III CRC were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib (20 mg daily) or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Where formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue samples were available, COX-2 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry and correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred thirty-four patients were entered onto the study. The trial was terminated early because of the worldwide withdrawal of rofecoxib. At this point, 1,167 patients had received rofecoxib and 1,160 patients had received placebo for median treatment durations of 7.4 and 8.2 months, respectively. For the rofecoxib and placebo arms, median follow-up times were 4.84 and 4.85 years, with 241 and 246 deaths and 297 and 329 recurrences, respectively. No difference was demonstrated in OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.16; P = .75) or recurrence (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04; P = .15) comparing the two groups. Tumor COX-2 expression by immunohistochemistry was assessed for 871 patients, but neither prognostic nor predictive effects were observed. CONCLUSION: In this study of abbreviated therapy in the adjuvant setting of CRC, rofecoxib did not improve OS or protect from recurrence in unselected patients. In addition, COX-2 expression did not correlate with prognosis overall or predict effectiveness of COX-2 inhibitors.

Rofecoxib and cardiovascular adverse events in adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors may retard the progression of cancer, but they have enhanced thrombotic potential. We report on cardiovascular adverse events in patients receiving rofecoxib to reduce rates of recurrence of colorectal cancer. METHODS: All serious adverse events that were cardiovascular thrombotic events were reviewed in 2434 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer participating in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of rofecoxib, 25 mg daily, started after potentially curative tumor resection and chemotherapy or radiotherapy as indicated. The trial was terminated prematurely owing to worldwide withdrawal of rofecoxib. To examine possible persistent risks, we examined cardiovascular thrombotic events reported up to 24 months after the trial was closed. RESULTS: The median duration of active treatment was 7.4 months. The 1167 patients receiving rofecoxib and the 1160 patients receiving placebo were well matched, with a median follow-up period of 33.0 months (interquartile range, 27.6 to 40.1) and 33.4 months (27.7 to 40.4), respectively. Of the 23 confirmed cardiovascular thrombotic events, 16 occurred in the rofecoxib group during or within 14 days after the treatment period, with an estimated relative risk of 2.66 (from the Cox proportional-hazards model; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 6.86; P=0.04). Analysis of the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration end point (the combined incidence of death from cardiovascular, hemorrhagic, and unknown causes; of nonfatal myocardial infarction; and of nonfatal ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke) gave an unadjusted relative risk of 1.60 (95% CI, 0.57 to 4.51; P=0.37). Fourteen more cardiovascular thrombotic events, six in the rofecoxib group, were reported within the 2 years after trial closure, with an overall unadjusted relative risk of 1.50 (95% CI, 0.76 to 2.94; P=0.24). Four patients in the rofecoxib group and two in the placebo group died from thrombotic causes during or within 14 days after the treatment period, and during the follow-up period, one patient in the rofecoxib group and five patients in the placebo group died from cardiovascular causes. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib therapy was associated with an increased frequency of adverse cardiovascular events among patients with a median study treatment of 7.4 months' duration. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN98278138 [controlled-trials.com].).