Lung eQTLs to help reveal the molecular underpinnings of asthma.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified loci reproducibly associated with pulmonary diseases; however, the molecular mechanism underlying these associations are largely unknown. The objectives of this study were to discover genetic variants affecting gene expression in human lung tissue, to refine susceptibility loci for asthma identified in GWAS studies, and to use the genetics of gene expression and network analyses to find key molecular drivers of asthma. We performed a genome-wide search for expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) in 1,111 human lung samples. The lung eQTL dataset was then used to inform asthma genetic studies reported in the literature. The top ranked lung eQTLs were integrated with the GWAS on asthma reported by the GABRIEL consortium to generate a Bayesian gene expression network for discovery of novel molecular pathways underpinning asthma. We detected 17,178 cis- and 593 trans- lung eQTLs, which can be used to explore the functional consequences of loci associated with lung diseases and traits. Some strong eQTLs are also asthma susceptibility loci. For example, rs3859192 on chr17q21 is robustly associated with the mRNA levels of GSDMA (P = 3.55 × 10(-151)). The genetic-gene expression network identified the SOCS3 pathway as one of the key drivers of asthma. The eQTLs and gene networks identified in this study are powerful tools for elucidating the causal mechanisms underlying pulmonary disease. This data resource offers much-needed support to pinpoint the causal genes and characterize the molecular function of gene variants associated with lung diseases.

Cardiovascular outcomes with etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in the Multinational Etoricoxib and Diclofenac Arthritis Long-term (MEDAL) programme: a randomised comparison.

BACKGROUND: Cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in placebo-controlled trials, but no clinical trial has been reported with the primary aim of assessing relative cardiovascular risk of these drugs compared with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The MEDAL programme was designed to provide a precise estimate of thrombotic cardiovascular events with the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib versus the traditional NSAID diclofenac. METHODS: We designed a prespecified pooled analysis of data from three trials in which patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to etoricoxib (60 mg or 90 mg daily) or diclofenac (150 mg daily). The primary hypothesis stated that etoricoxib is not inferior to diclofenac, defined as an upper boundary of less than 1.30 for the 95% CI of the hazard ratio for thrombotic cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis. Intention-to-treat analyses were also done to assess consistency of results. These trials are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the numbers NCT00092703, NCT00092742, and NCT00250445. FINDINGS: 34 701 patients (24 913 with osteoarthritis and 9 787 with rheumatoid arthritis) were enrolled. Average treatment duration was 18 months (SD 11.8). 320 patients in the etoricoxib group and 323 in the diclofenac group had thrombotic cardiovascular events, yielding event rates of 1.24 and 1.30 per 100 patient-years and a hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11) for etoricoxib compared with diclofenac. Rates of upper gastrointestinal clinical events (perforation, bleeding, obstruction, ulcer) were lower with etoricoxib than with diclofenac (0.67 vs 0.97 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.69 [0.57-0.83]), but the rates of complicated upper gastrointestinal events were similar for etoricoxib (0.30) and diclofenac (0.32). INTERPRETATION: Rates of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with arthritis on etoricoxib are similar to those in patients on diclofenac with long-term use of these drugs.

Dental impaction pain model as a potential tool to evaluate drugs with efficacy in neuropathic pain.

Intravenous lidocaine, a nonspecific Na-channel blocker, was used to assess the dental impaction model for evaluation of neuropathic pain drugs. Sixty patients, experiencing moderate or severe pain after removal of > or = 2 third molars, were randomized (2:2:1:1) to lidocaine (4 mg/kg; maximal dose 300 mg), oxycodone/acetaminophen (10/650 mg), placebo, and active placebo (diphenhydramine, 50 mg). Lidocaine provided a modest degree of pain relief. Predefined endpoints of total pain relief and sum of pain intensity at 2, 4, and 6 hours showed numerically, not statistically significantly, greater pain relief versus placebo. A significantly greater effect over placebo was observed in peak effect and at shorter time points (30 minutes and 1 hour), consistent with the pharmacokinetic profile (plasma concentration of approximately 2 mug/mL). Oxycodone/acetaminophen provided significantly greater analgesia versus placebo, validating study conduct, and significantly greater pain relief was observed versus lidocaine, which is consistent with a smaller portion of dental extraction pain being of neuropathic origin.

Evaluation of the effect of perioperative rofecoxib treatment on pain control and clinical outcomes in patients recovering from gynecologic abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 50 mg was evaluated in patients undergoing major abdominal gynecologic surgery. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 81) or placebo (n = 83) approximately 2 hours before total abdominal hysterectomy or myomectomy and once daily over the ensuing 4 days. Clinical measurements included average daily opioid use over the 5-day period (primary endpoint), pain intensity on movement, and opioid-related side effects. RESULTS: Patients receiving rofecoxib required 32% less (P = .001) intravenous and oral opioids to relieve their postoperative pain from days 1 to 5 (primary endpoint), used 21% less (P = .011) on day 1, and 42% less (P < .001) from days 2 to 5. The rofecoxib group experienced less pain upon movement (P < .001), less sedation (P = .007), and a 24% reduction in the rate of antiemetic intake (P = .037) over the first 72 hours postsurgery. Earlier mean times to first flatus (-10.1 hours, P = .001), first bowel movement (-14.1 hours, P = .037), and time to hospital discharge (-10.9 hours; 95% confidence interval, -17.1 to -4.7) occurred in the rofecoxib group. There were no significant intergroup differences in blood loss, wound healing, or overall adverse experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, perioperative administration of rofecoxib 50 mg provided significant opioid sparing, significantly better pain control, improved clinical outcomes, and was well tolerated.

Evaluation of the comparative efficacy of etoricoxib and ibuprofen for treatment of patients with osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To directly compare the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, and placebo for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with OA of the knee or hip was performed between February 2003 and November 2003 in 61 medical centers in the United States. Qualified patients aged 40 to 89 years were randomized to receive placebo, etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy end points Included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Response to treatment was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 528 patients, baseline values for the 3 primary end points ranged from 67.78 to 72.60 mm (0-100 mm visual analog scale). Near-maximal efficacy was achieved by week 2 with both active treatments and sustained over the course of the trial. During the 12-week period, least squares mean changes in the primary end points (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status subscales) ranged from -16.53 to -13.55 mm, -27.89 to -23.68 mm, and -26.53 to -22.97 mm in the placebo, etoricoxib, and Ibuprofen groups, respectively. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were more effective (P<.001) than placebo for all primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen treatment responses for the primary end points were determined to be comparable with use of prespecified comparability criteria. Results for all other efficacy end points were consistent with responses observed for the primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen generally were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: For patients with OA, treatment with etoricoxib, 30 mg/d, is well tolerated and provides sustained clinical effectiveness that is superior to placebo and comparable to ibuprofen, 2400 mg/d.

The analgesic effect of etoricoxib relative to that of cetaminophen analgesics: a randomized, controlled single-dose study in acute dental impaction pain.

BACKGROUND: To compare the analgesic effect of single doses of etoricoxib 120 mg, oxycodone/ acetaminophen 10 mg/650 mg and codeine/ acetaminophen 60 mg/600 mg in acute pain using the dental impaction model. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients reported pain intensity and pain relief (16 times) and global scores (twice) during a 24-h period. The primary endpoint was the overall analgesic effect, total pain relief over 6 h (TOPAR6). Other endpoints were patient global evaluation, time to onset (2-stopwatch method), duration of analgesic effect (median time to and amount of rescue medication use). Tolerability was evaluated by overall and opioid-related (nausea and vomiting) adverse experiences. RESULTS: 302 patients (mean age 23; 63% women; 63 % White) were randomized to etoricoxib 120 mg, oxycodone/acetaminophen 10 mg/650 mg, codeine/acetaminophen 60 mg/600 mg, and placebo (2:2:1:1). Etoricoxib demonstrated significantly greater overall analgesic efficacy (TOPAR6) (13.2 units) versus oxycodone/acetaminophen (10.2 units); and codeine/acetaminophen (6.0 units); p < 0.001 for all. All active treatments were superior to placebo. Median time to onset was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter for oxycodone/acetaminophen (20 min) and numerically but not significantly shorter (p = 0.259) for codeine/acetaminophen (26 min) compared with etoricoxib (40 min). Etoricoxib (24 h) had a significantly longer lasting analgesic effect than oxycodone/acetaminophen (5.3 h), codeine/acetaminophen (2.7 h), and placebo (1.7 h) (p < 0.001 for all). Etoricoxib patients experienced fewer clinical adverse experiences than patients on oxycodone/acetaminophen and codeine/acetaminophen, specifically, significantly (p < 0.05) fewer episodes of nausea. CONCLUSION: Etoricoxib 120 mg provided superior overall analgesic effect with a smaller percentage of patients experiencing nausea versus both oxycodone/acetaminophen 10 mg/650 mg and codeine/acetaminophen 60 mg/600 mg.

The incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse events in clinical trials of etoricoxib vs. non-selective NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In spite of numerous studies demonstrating the serious gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), many patients at high GI risk continue to receive prescriptions for these drugs, often without gastroprotective agents. Etoricoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, was developed to provide similar efficacy and less GI toxicity than non-selective NSAIDs. We compared the incidence of upper GI Perforations, symptomatic gastroduodenal Ulcers, and upper GI Bleeding (PUBs) in a combined analysis of all randomized, double-blind, clinical trials of chronic treatment with etoricoxib versus NSAIDs completed by June 2003. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data for 5441 individual subjects with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis were pooled from all 10 multinational etoricoxib trials completed by June 2003. Information on suspected PUBs was prospectively collected in all protocols, and all investigator-reported PUBs were judged by a blinded, external adjudication committee using pre-specified criteria. PUBs were analyzed using COX proportional hazards models using terms for treatment and known PUB risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of confirmed PUBs among patients treated with etoricoxib 60 mg, 90 mg, or 120 mg (combined N=3226) was compared to that among patients treated with ibuprofen, diclofenac, or naproxen (combined N=2215). RESULTS: The incidence of PUBs over 44.3 months was significantly lower with etoricoxib vs. NSAIDs [cumulative incidence 1.24% vs. 2.48%, p < 0.001; rate/100 patient-years 1.00 vs. 2.47; relative risk 0.48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32, 0.73]. Results of analysis of events occurring during the first year of treatment and subgroup analyses were consistent with the primary result. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with etoricoxib was associated with a significantly lower incidence of PUBs than was treatment with non-selective NSAIDs. The difference was consistent in subgroups of patients defined by a variety of known risk factors.

Etoricoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis over 52-weeks: a double-blind, active-comparator controlled trial [NCT00242489].

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter study was conducted in 617 patients with OA of the knee. The base study was 14 weeks in duration and consisted of 2 parts; in Part I (6 weeks), patients were allocated to once daily oral etoricoxib 5, 10, 30, 60, 90 mg or placebo. In Part II (8 weeks); the placebo, etoricoxib 5 and 10 mg groups were reallocated to etoricoxib 30, 60, or 90 mg qd or diclofenac 50 mg t.i.d. Treatment was continued for consecutive 12 and 26 week extensions. Primary efficacy endpoints were the WOMAC VA 3.0 pain subscale and investigator global assessment of disease status. Safety and tolerability were assessed by collecting adverse events throughout the study. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the etoricoxib groups displayed significant (p < 0.05), dose-dependent efficacy for all primary endpoints in Part I; efficacy was maintained throughout the 52 weeks of the study. During the 46-week active-comparator controlled period, the etoricoxib groups demonstrated clinical efficacy that was similar to that of diclofenac 150 mg and was generally well tolerated, with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) nuisance symptoms compared with diclofenac (13.1, 14.7, and 13.5% for etoricoxib 30, 60, and 90 mg, respectively compared with 22.5% for diclofenac). CONCLUSION: In this extension study, etoricoxib, at doses ranging from 30 to 90 mg, demonstrated a maintenance of significant clinical efficacy in patients with OA through 52 weeks of treatment. Etoricoxib displayed clinical efficacy similar to diclofenac 150 mg and was generally well tolerated.

Selective COX-2 inhibition and cardiovascular effects: a review of the rofecoxib development program.

See related Editorials on pages 561 and 563. Cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors appear to alter the balance of vasoactive eicosanoids (prostacyclin and thromboxane) and to suppress the inflammatory mediators implicated in the progression of atherogenesis and ischemic myocardial injury. Neutral, harmful, and beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effects have all been postulated to result from these changes. Investigations conducted with rofecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, have substantially contributed to our understanding of this scientific area. Rofecoxib had little or no effect on platelet aggregation or platelet-derived thromboxane synthesis but reduced systemic prostacyclin synthesis by 50% to 60%. These findings prompted extensive analyses of CV thrombotic events within the rofecoxib development program. Among 5435 osteoarthritis trial participants, similar rates of CV thrombotic events were reported with rofecoxib, placebo, and comparator, nonselective NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac, and nabumetone). In the VIGOR gastrointestinal outcomes trial of >8000 patients, naproxen (an NSAID with aspirin-like sustained antiplatelet effects throughout its dosing interval) was associated with a significantly lower risk of CV events than was rofecoxib. A subsequent pooled analysis from 23 studies (including VIGOR) encompassing multiple disease states and including more than 14,000 patient-years at risk also demonstrated that rofecoxib was not associated with excess CV thrombotic events compared with either placebo or nonnaproxen NSAIDs. Again, naproxen appeared to be the outlier, suggesting a cardioprotective benefit of naproxen. Finally, among the predominantly elderly, male population participating in Alzheimer trials, both rofecoxib- and placebo-treated patients had similar rates of CV thrombotic events. The totality of data is not consistent with an increased CV risk among patients taking rofecoxib.

Comparison of cardiovascular thrombotic events in patients with osteoarthritis treated with rofecoxib versus nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, diclofenac, and nabumetone).

Aspirin, nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and specific cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors each have distinctive effects on COX-1-mediated thromboxane biosynthesis, the major determinant of platelet aggregation. It is unclear whether these effects are associated with differences in thrombogenic risks. To compare the risk for thrombotic cardiovascular events among patients receiving rofecoxib, nonselective NSAIDs, and placebo, cardiovascular safety was assessed in 5,435 participants in 8 phase IIB/III osteoarthritis trials. The median treatment exposure was 31/2 months. The primary end point assessed was the risk of any arterial or venous thrombotic cardiovascular adverse event (AE). A second analysis assessed differences in the Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) events, a cluster end point that consists of the combined incidence of (1) cardiovascular, hemorrhagic, and unknown death; (2) myocardial infarction; and (3) cerebrovascular accident. Similar rates of thrombotic cardiovascular AEs were reported with rofecoxib, placebo, and comparator nonselective NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac, or nabumetone). In trials that compared rofecoxib with NSAIDs, the incidence of thrombotic cardiovascular AEs was 1.93/100 patient-years in the rofecoxib treatment group compared with 2.27/100 patient-years in the combined nonselective NSAID group. In trials that compared rofecoxib with placebo, the incidence of thrombotic cardiovascular AEs was 2.71/100 patient-years in the rofecoxib group compared with 2.57/100 patient-years in the placebo group. Consistent with the risks of cardiovascular AEs, similar rates of APTC events were reported with rofecoxib, placebo, and comparator nonselective NSAIDs. Thus, in the rofecoxib osteoarthritis development program, there was no difference between rofecoxib, comparator nonselective NSAIDs, and placebo in the risks of cardiovascular thrombotic events.

Renal effects of etoricoxib and comparator nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Based on the experience with selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, including rofecoxib, valdecoxib, and celecoxib, it was anticipated that etoricoxib, a new selective COX-2 inhibitor, would display mechanism-based, dose-dependent renal adverse effects (AEs) similar to those observed with nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in long-term treatment. OBJECTIVE: The present analysis examined pooled safety data from the etoricoxib clinical development program with the aim of comparing the renal AE profiles of etoricoxib 60, 90, and 120 mg/d with those of approved therapeutic dosages of the comparator nonselective NSAIDs, naproxen 1000 mg/d and ibuprofen 2400 mg/d, and with that of placebo. METHODS: The etoricoxib program database included data from 8 placebo-controlled Phase III studies of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic low back pain. As part of the program-wide assessment of etoricoxib, the investigator-reported incidence of and discontinuations due to renal AEs, including hypertension, lower-extremity edema (LEE), elevated serum creatinine concentration (SCC), and congestive heart failure (CHF) were examined. RESULTS: Data from 4770 patients were included in the analysis. Most patients were women (69.0%-80.3%), and most were white (68.0%-83.3%). The mean (SD) age at baseline ranged from 53.6 (12.1) to 62.2 (8.4) years. Overall, the incidence of renal AEs was low and generally similar between the active-treatment groups. In the placebo; etoricoxib 60-, 90-, and 120-mg; naproxen, and ibuprofen groups, the incidences of hypertension were 2.0%, 4.0%, 3.4%, 4.7%, 2.9%, and 6.6%, respectively, and the incidences of LEE were 1.9%, 3.2%, 1.5%, 1.3%, 2.3%, and 1.8%, respectively. The only significant difference found was the incidence of hypertension with etoricoxib 90 mg/d versus that with placebo (P=0.001); however, the rates of hypertension observed with etoricoxib at any dosage were not clinically meaningfully different versus comparator NSAIDs. Also, LEE was rarely of clinical significance with etoricoxib or comparator NSAIDs; related discontinuations were infrequent in all treatment groups. In addition, the incidences of elevated SCC and CHF were low among active-treatment groups (0.0% to 0.8% and 0.0% to 0.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this combined data review, the risks for renal AEs (i.e., hypertension, LEE, elevated SCC changes, and CHF) with etoricoxib 60, 90, and 120 mg/d were low, with a shallow dose response, and were generally similar to those found with the comparator NSAIDs naproxen 1000 mg/d and ibuprofen 2400 mg/d.

Onset of pain relief with rofecoxib in chronic low back pain: results of two four-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We recently reported the efficacy of rofecoxib in two randomized controlled trials in chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objectives of this report are to present data regarding the onset of efficacy of rofecoxib from these trials and propose methods for reporting onset. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were aged 18-75, with non-radicular CLBP for >or= 3 months. Patients were randomized to rofecoxib 25mg, 50 mg, or placebo once daily for 4 weeks. Assessments included Low Back Pain and Bothersomeness scales every morning and Relief from Starting Pain after the first dose at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 h, bedtime, and next morning. Onset of meaningful relief was measured by Time to Confirmed 50% Reduction in Pain and Time to Confirmed 'Slightly' or 'Not At All' Bothersome Pain. Onset of perceptible pain relief was measured by Time to At Least 'A Little' Confirmed Pain Relief. RESULTS: 690 patients entered. Significantly more patients treated with rofecoxib had compared with 1/3 receiving placebo. Median meaningful relief compared to placebo: 60.4, 58.4, and 34.7% for rofecoxib 25mg, 50 mg, and placebo (p< 0.001). Median time to meaningful relief for rofecoxib was 2 days, 1 day sooner than placebo. Rofecoxib was superior to placebo by bedtime after the first dose. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2/3 of patients achieved meaningful pain relief with rofecoxib time to onset of meaningful relief was about 2 days, but superior relief over placebo was seen by bedtime after the first dose. Onset of perceptible pain relief was within 2 h. We propose that measures of onset of analgesic effect include the proportion of patients who achieve meaningful pain relief and in this subgroup, the time-to-onset of confirmed meaningful reduction in pain intensity, time-to-onset of confirmed pain relief, and time to first separation from placebo in the proportion of patients who achieve meaningful pain relief.

A comparison of adverse renovascular experiences among osteoarthritis patients treated with rofecoxib and comparator non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents.

BACKGROUND: Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit both cyclo-oxygenase (COX) isoenzymes, i.e. COX-1 and COX-2. Rofecoxib, an agent that selectively inhibits COX-2, has been shown to provide equivalent anti-inflammatory and analgesic efficacy to comparator non-selective NSAIDs in osteoarthritis (OA) and other pain models with a significant improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) safety and tolerability. Based on renal physiology studies, it was predicted that rofecoxib would have renovascular effects similar to those observed with non-selective NSAIDs--specifically edema, blood pressure elevation, attenuation of the effects of ACE inhibitors, and (in rare circumstances), acute renal failure might be manifest in a small percentage of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the renovascular safety profile of rofecoxib in OA patients compared to that of non-selective NSAID comparators. METHODS: Renovascular adverse experiences (AEs) in over 5,000 participants in Phase IIb/III OA clinical trials were reviewed and compared between rofecoxib and non-selective NSAID comparators (ibuprofen 800mg tid, diclofenac 50 mg tid, nabumetone 1,500 mg qd). RESULTS: The incidence of lower extremity edema (LEE) AEs was generally similar between rofecoxib 12.5 mg/day, rofecoxib 25 mg/day, and non-selective comparator NSAIDs. Treatment discontinuations due to LEE AEs and clinically significant weight gain (> or = 2 kg) associated with LEE AEs were infrequent and generally similar in all active treatment groups. Congestive heart failure (CHF) was rare in all treatment groups. The incidence of hypertension AEs was low in all active treatment groups. Discontinuations due to hypertension AEs and hypertension AEs requiring a change or adjustment in blood pressure medications were similar and uncommon in all treatment groups. There was only a single report of acute renal failure (in the ibuprofen treatment group). CONCLUSIONS: In the rofecoxib phase IIb/III OA database, the renal safety profile for rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, was generally similar to that of the comparator, non-selective NSAIDs which were studied.

The upper gastrointestinal safety of rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are nonspecific cyclo-oxygenase (COX-1/COX-2) inhibitors and are associated with gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity attributable to COX-1 inhibition. Rofecoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, was developed to provide similar efficacy and less GI toxicity than NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE: To update the results of a previously performed analysis of the incidence of upper GI perforations, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers, and upper GI bleeding (PUBs) with rofecoxib compared with non-selective NSAIDs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared the incidence of PUBs in a combined analysis of 20 randomized, double-blind, clinical trials of rofecoxib versus NSAIDs. Men and women (N = 17,072) from multinational trial sites with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis were studied. There was no upper age limit in any of the trials. Investigator-reported PUBs were reviewed by a blinded, external adjudication committee using pre-specified criteria. The incidence of confirmed PUBs, the main outcome measure, among patients treated with rofecoxib 12.5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg (combined, N = 10 026) was compared to that among patients treated with ibuprofen, diclofenac, nabumetone, or naproxen (combined, N = 7046). RESULTS: The incidence of PUBs over 24.8 months was significantly lower with rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs (cumulative incidence 1.6% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001; rate/100 patient-years 0.74 vs. 1.87; relative risk 0.36, 95% CI 0.24, 0.54). Results of subgroup analyses and comparisons of rofecoxib with individual NSAID comparators were consistent with the primary result, as was an analysis in patients with no PUB risk factors. DISCUSSION: The analysis demonstrated a consistently lower incidence of confirmed PUBs with rofecoxib than with NSAIDs over 24.8 months. These results confirm those of a previous smaller combined analysis of clinical trials with rofecoxib vs. non-selective NSAIDs in OA patients only, in which the risk reduction for confirmed PUBs was approximately 50%. In addition, this analysis demonstrated risk reductions with rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs in risk subgroups and in patients who did not have any known risk factors for PUBs consistent with the primary result. Some of the studies in this analysis required scheduled endoscopies. Asymptomatic upper GI ulcers or bleeding diagnosed during scheduled procedures were not included in the primary endpoint, which may have caused a bias against rofecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rofecoxib was associated with a statistically significantly (p < 0.001) lower incidence of PUBs than was treatment with NSAIDs. The difference was maintained in subgroups of patients with risk factors, as well as in those with no risk factors, for PUBs.

Evaluation of early biomarkers of muscle anabolic response to testosterone.

BACKGROUND: Early biomarkers of skeletal muscle anabolism will facilitate the development of therapies for sarcopenia and frailty. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined plasma type III collagen N-terminal propeptide (P3NP), skeletal muscle protein fractional synthesis rate, and gene and protein expression profiles to identify testosterone-induced changes in muscle anabolism. Two placebo-controlled studies enrolled community-dwelling men (study 1, 60-75 years; study 2, 18-40 years) with low to normal testosterone levels. Men were randomized to lower dose (study 1, 100 mg; study 2, 200 mg) or higher dose (study 1, 300 mg; study 2, 600 mg) single intramuscular testosterone or saline injection. After 1 week, testosterone acutely increased plasma P3NP levels in a dose-dependent manner and altered the expression of several skeletal muscle transcripts and proteins. Though not statistically significant, mixed muscle protein fractional synthesis rate tended to increase (1.08-fold with 100 mg testosterone, 1.12-fold with 300 mg testosterone). Testosterone exposure also increased skeletal muscle expression of the collagen type III gene that encodes P3NP. CONCLUSION: P3NP is a potentially useful early biomarker for muscle anabolic therapy. Skeletal muscle protein and RNA profiling are useful tools for the discovery of novel muscle anabolic biomarkers.

An enhanced bunionectomy model as a potential tool for early decision-making in the development of new analgesics.

BACKGROUND: bunionectomy has been used as a model of postoperative pain for opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors with a fast onset of analgesia. The present study was conducted to assess whether the utility of the model can be broadened in assessing the efficacy of analgesics with diverse mechanisms and pharmacokinetic profiles in drug development and to enhance the sensitivity of a bunionectomy model. METHODS: this was a single center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm, parallel group methodology study to evaluate the effects of pregabalin and naproxen sodium on postoperative pain following bunionectomy. Patients (n=100) were randomized 1:1:1 to three treatments (administered 1 hour before and at defined intervals after surgery): pregabalin 300 mg before surgery and 150 mg every 8 hours; naproxen sodium 550 mg before surgery and 550 mg every 12 hours; or placebo in a double-dummy fashion. Primary endpoints were patient-controlled analgesic (PCA) hydromorphone consumption and the time to first PCA hydromorphone use postsurgery over 24 hours. RESULTS: of the 100 patients randomized, 96 completed the study. Relative to placebo, pregabalin and naproxen sodium, respectively, reduced PCA hydromorphone consumption by 51% (P=0.005) and 65% (P<0.001) and increased the median time to first use of PCA hydromorphone by 1.5 hours (P=0.004) and 3.7 hours (P<0.001). Both drugs significantly (P<0.050) decreased use of oral opioid rescue medication over 24-48 hours postsurgery relative to placebo. Although there were no statistically significant differences between naproxen sodium and pregabalin in opioid consumption and global evaluation of medication, overall naproxen sodium appeared to be more effective at reducing pain. CONCLUSIONS: the model provided a sensitive method for evaluating efficacy of compounds with diverse mechanisms and pharmacokinetic profiles. The robustness of the enhanced pain model renders bunionectomy pain a valuable tool to assess novel analgesic compounds in small numbers of subjects early in drug development.