Gastrointestinal tolerability and effectiveness of rofecoxib versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity mediated by dual cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 inhibition of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can cause serious alterations of mucosal integrity or, more commonly, intolerable GI symptoms that may necessitate discontinuation of therapy. Unlike NSAIDs, rofecoxib targets only the COX-2 isoform. OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability of rofecoxib compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 600 office and clinical research sites. PATIENTS: 5557 patients (mean age, 63 years) with a baseline diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, hand, or spine. INTERVENTION: Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, or naproxen, 500 mg twice daily. Use of routine medications, including aspirin, was permitted. MEASUREMENTS: Discontinuation due to GI adverse events (primary end point) and use of concomitant medication to treat GI symptoms (secondary end point). Efficacy was determined by patient-reported global assessment of disease status and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, as well as discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. RESULTS: Rates of cumulative discontinuation due to GI adverse events were statistically significantly lower in the rofecoxib group than in the naproxen group (5.9% vs. 8.1%; relative risk, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92]; P = 0.005), as were rates of cumulative use of medication to treat GI symptoms (9.1% vs. 11.2%; relative risk, 0.79 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]; P = 0.014]). Subgroup analysis of patients who used low-dose aspirin (13%) and those who previously discontinued using arthritis medication because of GI symptoms (15%) demonstrated a relative risk similar to the overall sample for discontinuation due to GI adverse events (relative risk, 0.56 [CI, 0.31 to 1.01] and 0.53 [CI, 0.34 to 0.84], respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between treatments for efficacy in treating osteoarthritis or for occurrence of other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with osteoarthritis treated for 12 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, was as effective as naproxen, 500 mg twice daily, but had statistically significantly superior GI tolerability and led to less use of concomitant GI medications. Benefits of rofecoxib in subgroup analyses were consistent with findings in the overall sample.

Response to therapy with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared to once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The FACT study (Fosamax Actonel Comparison Trial) was a 1-year-head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of once weekly (DW) alendronate 70 mg and OW risedronate 35 mg for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The present analysis was performed to determine the percentage of patients who had changes during the study in BMD and biochemical markers (BCMs) of bone turnover above or below specific cut-off points. A subgroup analysis of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability was also performed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 1053 postmenopausal women with low BMD were randomized to alendronate 70 mg OW (N = 520) or risedronate 35 mg OW (N = 533). The percentage of patients who had measured BMD gains > or = 3%, and > or = 5% after 12 months at the hip trochanter, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (LS) was analyzed. The percentage of patients who experienced any bone loss, and those with measured losses of 3% or more at these sites after 12 months, was determined. The percentage of patients achieving reductions in urinary N-telopeptide of type 1 human collagen (NTX) > or = 40%, and serum C-telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTx) > or = 60%, bone-specific phosphatase (BSAP) > or = 30%, and N terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (P1NP) > or = 50% at 3 months and 12 months was also determined. Tolerability, based on adverse experience reporting, was evaluated in a subgroup of patients with history of UGI disorders at baseline. RESULTS: A greater percentage of alendronate- than risedronate-treated patients had measured BMD gains (> or = 0%) (p < 0.05) at all sites at 12 months. Significantly more (p < 0.01) alendronate- than risedronate-treated patients had measured gains in BMD > or = 3% and > or = 5% at the hip trochanter, total hip, and LS spine. Significantly more (p < 0.05) risedronate- than alendronate-treated patients had an apparent loss of BMD (> 0% and > or = 3% loss) at the same sites. After 3 months, significantly (p < 0.001) more alendronate- than risedronate- treated patients achieved predefined reductions in all BCMs. Similar tolerability was demonstrated in both treatment groups, regardless of whether or not patients had a history of UGI disorders at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more alendronate- than risedronate-treated patients achieved predefined increases in BMD at 12 months and reductions in BCMs at 3 months. Significantly more risedronate- than alendronate-treated patients were classified as apparent 'non-responders' (i.e. experienced any bone loss) after 12 months of therapy. The tolerability profiles of the two medications were similar.

Effects of montelukast and beclomethasone on airway function and asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining asthma control is a major objective of therapy. Traditionally, the effectiveness of asthma therapy has been judged primarily by its effect on airway function rather than on multiaspect asthma control. OBJECTIVE: An inhaled corticosteroid and a leukotriene receptor antagonist were compared to determine whether they provided equivalent effects, as judged by days of asthma control. METHODS: In a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, asthmatic patients (n = 782) with FEV(1) percent predicted values of between 50% and 85% and a weekly average beta-agonist use of more than 2 puffs per day were randomized to receive montelukast (10 mg daily), beclomethasone (200 microg twice daily), or placebo treatment for 6 weeks in a double-dummy fashion. We examined the distribution of the primary end point: percentage of days of asthma control. Secondary end points included FEV(1), albuterol use, occurrence of an asthma attack, asthma flare-up, rescue corticosteroid use, sustained asthma control, and adverse experiences. RESULTS: The percentage of days of asthma control was almost identical between the montelukast and beclomethasone groups (98% overlap in the distribution). Montelukast was at least equal to beclomethasone, and both were greater than placebo on the basis of frequency of asthma attacks, asthma flare-ups, and rescue corticosteroid use. Beclomethasone had a greater effect than montelukast and both treatments were better than placebo at improving FEV(1). CONCLUSIONS: Montelukast was as effective as beclomethasone, as judged by indices of clinical control other than FEV(1). When evaluating the outcome of montelukast therapy, FEV(1) might underestimate clinical effectiveness.