Double-blind randomized trials of single-tablet ibuprofen/high-dose famotidine vs. ibuprofen alone for reduction of gastric and duodenal ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: We performed two 24-week double-blind trials (REDUCE-1 and -2 (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies)) to assess whether double-dose famotidine given in a single-tablet combination with ibuprofen (HZT-501) significantly reduces gastric and duodenal ulcers as compared with ibuprofen. METHODS: Patients (40-80 years) requiring daily non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for ≥6 months with no prior ulcer complications, negative H. pylori stool test, and baseline endoscopy showing no ulcers and <5 erosions were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to HZT-501 or identical-appearing ibuprofen 800 mg tablets thrice daily. Study endoscopies were done at 8, 16, and 24 weeks. After unblinding and initial analyses, 12 patients were found to be misclassified as having gastric ulcers based on the adjudication of endoscopy reports, and analyses were re-run. RESULTS: In REDUCE-1, the primary end point analysis of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 12.7% vs. 22.9% (P=0.0044) in the post-adjudication analysis. In REDUCE-2, the primary end point analysis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers was 13.0% vs. 20.5% (P=0.0587) in the post-adjudication analysis. Prespecified pooled analyses showed significantly fewer gastric (12.5% vs. 20.7%) and duodenal ulcers (1.1% vs. 5.1%) with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen. Proportional hazards analysis of multiple potential risk factors showed the risk ratio of upper GI ulcers with HZT-501 vs. ibuprofen was 0.46, 95% confidence interval was 0.34-0.61. CONCLUSIONS: Combined results of the REDUCE studies indicate that double-dose famotidine plus ibuprofen, given as a combination tablet, decreases endoscopic upper GI ulcers as compared with ibuprofen alone.

Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Potential Consequences of Uncontrolled Gout: An Insurance-Claims Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: Gout is a common, progressive, systemic inflammatory arthritis caused by hyperuricemia. Current guidelines recommend that serum uric acid (sUA) levels be maintained below 6.0 mg/dl to minimize acute gout attacks, tophi development, and long-term joint and organ damage. This study examined the influence of uncontrolled gout on post-diagnosis comorbidities and medication use. METHODS: The Humana Research Database (2007-2016, commercial insurance and Medicare) was searched (PearlDiver tool) for patients who had a gout diagnosis code, claims data for at least 6 months before and after diagnosis, and at least 90 days of continuous urate-lowering therapy within 1 year of diagnosis. Patients with controlled (all sUA measurements < 6.0 mg/dl) and uncontrolled (all sUA measurements ≥ 8.0 mg/dl) gout were further examined and compared to better understand the influence of uncontrolled gout on post-diagnosis comorbidities, medication use, and reasons for seeking medical care. RESULTS: A total of 5473 and 1358 patients met inclusion and classification criteria for the controlled and uncontrolled groups, respectively. Identified comorbidities in both groups included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the uncontrolled group was more likely to have diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease (including heart failure and atrial fibrillation). Additionally, CKD tended to be more advanced in the uncontrolled gout population (Stage 4-5: 34.6 vs. 22.2%). Overall opioid use was higher in uncontrolled patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current study identified differences between controlled and uncontrolled gout patients, including usage of medication, severity of CKD, and prevalence of CKD, diabetes, and heart disease.

Pooled analysis of tanezumab efficacy and safety with subgroup analyses of phase III clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis pain of the knee or hip.

PURPOSE: A pooled analysis was conducted to evaluate tanezumab efficacy and safety in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), including subgroup analyses of at-risk patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, and those aged ≥65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from phase III placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip were pooled to evaluate tanezumab efficacy (four trials) and safety (nine trials). Patients received intravenous tanezumab, tanezumab plus an oral NSAID (naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac), active comparator (naproxen, celecoxib, diclofenac, or oxycodone), or placebo. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores, Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and percentage of patients with ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70%, and ≥90% improvement in WOMAC pain. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) documentation and physical and neurologic examinations. RESULTS: Tanezumab significantly improved all efficacy end points in the overall population. Efficacy in at-risk patient subgroups was similar to the overall population. Incidence of AEs was highest in the tanezumab plus NSAID group and lowest in the placebo group. Incidence of AEs in the tanezumab monotherapy and active comparator groups was similar. Overall incidence of AEs was similar across subgroups. AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation were more frequently reported in tanezumab-treated patients compared with placebo or active comparator. Patients receiving active comparator had a slightly higher incidence of AEs suggestive of postganglionic sympathetic dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Tanezumab consistently provided significant improvement of pain, physical function, and PGA in individuals with OA, including patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, or aged ≥65 years. No increased safety risk was observed in at-risk patient subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00733902, NCT00744471, NCT00830063, NCT00863304, NCT00809354, NCT00864097, NCT00863772, NCT01089725, NCT00985621.

Recommendations for optimizing methotrexate treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methotrexate (MTX) remains the cornerstone therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with well-established safety and efficacy profiles and support in international guidelines. Clinical and radiologic results indicate benefits of MTX monotherapy and combination with other agents, yet patients may not receive optimal dosing, duration, or route of administration to maximize their response to this drug. This review highlights best practices for MTX use in RA patients. First, to improve the response to oral MTX, a high initial dose should be administered followed by rapid titration. Importantly, this approach does not appear to compromise safety or tolerability for patients. Treatment with oral MTX, with appropriate dose titration, then should be continued for at least 6 months (as long as the patient experiences some response to treatment within 3 months) to achieve an accurate assessment of treatment efficacy. If oral MTX treatment fails due to intolerability or inadequate response, the patient may be "rescued" by switching to subcutaneous delivery of MTX. Consideration should also be given to starting with subcutaneous MTX given its favorable bioavailability and pharmacodynamic profile over oral delivery. Either initiation of subcutaneous MTX therapy or switching from oral to subcutaneous administration improves persistence with treatment. Upon transition from oral to subcutaneous delivery, MTX dosage should be maintained, rather than increased, and titration should be performed as needed. Similarly, if another RA treatment is necessary to control the disease, the MTX dosage and route of administration should be maintained, with titration as needed.

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.

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.

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.

Effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib on blood pressure and edema in patients > or =65 years of age with systemic hypertension and osteoarthritis.

Concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors, with antihypertensive medication is common practice for many patients with arthritis. This study evaluated the effects of celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day on blood pressure (BP) and edema in a 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study in patients > or =65 years of age with osteoarthritis who were treated with fixed antihypertensive regimens. One thousand ninety-two patients received study medication (celecoxib, n = 549; rofecoxib, n = 543). Significantly more patients in the rofecoxib group compared with the celecoxib group developed increased systolic BP (change >20 mm Hg plus absolute value > or =140 mm Hg) at any time point (14.9% vs 6.9%, p <0.01). Rofecoxib caused the greatest increase in systolic BP in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or beta blockers, whereas those on calcium channel antagonists or diuretic monotherapy receiving either celecoxib or rofecoxib showed no significant increases in BP. Clinically significant new-onset or worsening edema associated with weight gain developed in a greater percentage of patients in the rofecoxib group (7.7%) compared with the celecoxib group (4.7%) (p <0.05). Thus, in patients with controlled hypertension on a fixed antihypertensive regimen, careful monitoring of BP is warranted after the initiation of celecoxib or rofecoxib therapy.

Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: clinical implications.

In February 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened an advisory committee meeting to discuss the accumulated data relating to the cardiovascular risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the potential implications on the class prescription labeling. The committee recommended, though not unanimously, that (1) the current data does not support the conclusion that naproxen has a lower risk of thrombotic events than other NSAIDs; (2) there is no latency period for the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events; (3) there are some patient populations at increased risk for events; and (4) equipoise remains in the major ongoing trial designed to address these issues further. The clinical implications of the FDA deliberations as well as the recently published meta-analyses and observational studies are discussed. With the information available today, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are significant differences between the approved NSAIDs with regard to the potential for cardiovascular events. An approach for balancing the major risks associated with NSAIDs is suggested. Clinicians should continue to use the current FDA NSAID labeling language to guide their decision making for individual patients until such time as the FDA makes changes.

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.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis: 2 randomized controlled trials versus naproxen.

OBJECTIVE: Two studies evaluated efficacy and safety of tanezumab versus naproxen for treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Randomized controlled studies [NCT00830063 (Study 1015, n=828) and NCT00863304 (Study 1018, n=840)] of subjects with hip or knee OA compared intravenous tanezumab (5 mg or 10 mg) to placebo and naproxen (500 mg twice daily). Coprimary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function (0-10 numerical rating scale), and patient's global assessment of OA at Week 16. RESULTS: In both studies, tanezumab reduced pain versus placebo [least squares mean differences, 95% CI, tanezumab 5 mg: -1.21 (-1.72, -0.70); -1.13 (-1.65, -0.62); tanezumab 10 mg: -0.91 (-1.42, -0.40); -0.80 (-1.32, -0.29)], and improved function and global scores. Tanezumab 5 mg produced greater pain reduction [-0.76 (-1.28, -0.25); -0.69 (-1.21, -0.17)], and favorable functional and global outcomes versus naproxen. Pain reductions with tanezumab 10 mg versus naproxen did not reach significance, unlike functional (both studies) and global (1 study) outcomes; thus, tanezumab 10 mg was not superior to naproxen, and predefined statistical testing procedures were not met, allowing for conclusion of superiority of tanezumab 5 mg over naproxen despite replicated favorable coprimary outcomes. Tanezumab was associated with greater incidence of peripheral sensory adverse events (paresthesia, hyperesthesia, hypoesthesia, burning sensation), pain in extremity, peripheral edema, and arthralgia. Overall frequency and discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar to placebo and naproxen. CONCLUSION: Tanezumab provides efficacious treatment of knee or hip OA and may have therapeutic utility in patients with OA who experience inadequate analgesia with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

DUEXIS(®) (ibuprofen 800 mg, famotidine 26.6 mg): a new approach to gastroprotection for patients with chronic pain and inflammation who require treatment with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Chronic pain conditions affect at least 116 million US adults and more than one-third of adults worldwide. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used extensively for the treatment of chronic pain due to their efficacy as anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents. Gastrointestinal toxicity is the most well known adverse effect of NSAID therapy and it may manifest as dyspepsia, ulcers, or bleeding. Current guidelines for the management of patients who require NSAIDs for chronic pain and inflammation recognize the potential toxicity associated with these drugs and the need for gastroprotection. DUEXIS(®) (ibuprofen 800 mg, famotidine 26.6 mg) is a proprietary combination, immediate release tablet containing 800 mg of ibuprofen and 26.6 mg of famotidine. The efficacy of DUEXIS(®) taken three times daily has been demonstrated in two large-scale controlled clinical trials (Registration Endoscopic Studies to Determine Ulcer Formation of HZT-501 Compared with Ibuprofen: Efficacy and Safety Studies (REDUCE) and REDUCE-2) which showed that this new formulation significantly reduced the risk of endoscopic upper gastrointestinal ulcers compared with ibuprofen alone (REDUCE-1, p < 0.0001, REDUCE-2, p <0.05). DUEXIS(®) was also superior to ibuprofen in decreasing the risk for gastric ulcers (REDUCE-1, p < 0.001, REDUCE-2, p < 0.05) as well as duodenal ulcers (REDUCE-1, p < 0.05, REDUCE-2, p < 0.05). Safety results from these two studies indicated that treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 55% of patients treated with DUEXIS(®)versus 58.7% for ibuprofen, and serious adverse events were recorded for 3.2% of patients treated with DUEXIS(®)versus 3.3% of those on ibuprofen. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 6.7% of patients treated with DUEXIS(®) and 7.6% for ibuprofen. The combination of ibuprofen and famotidine in a single tablet has the potential to improve adherence to gastroprotective therapy in patients who require NSAID treatment and the use of a histamine type 2 receptor antagonist rather than a proton-pump inhibitor may decrease the risk for clinically significant drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. interaction with clopidogrel, fracture, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection).

Collagen hydrolysate for the treatment of osteoarthritis and other joint disorders: a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for an effective treatment for the millions of people in the United States with osteoarthritis (OA), a degenerative joint disease. The demand for treatments, both traditional and non-traditional, will continue to grow as the population ages. SCOPE: This article reviews the medical literature on the preclinical and clinical research on a unique compound, collagen hydrolysate. Articles were obtained through searches of the PubMed database (www.pubmed.gov) through May 2006 using several pairs of key words (collagen hydrolysate and osteoarthritis; collagen hydrolysate and cartilage; collagen hydrolysate and chondrocytes; collagen hydrolysate and clinical trial) without date limits. In addition, other sources of information, such as abstracts presented at scientific congresses and articles in the German medical literature not available on PubMed, were reviewed and included based on the authors' judgment of their relevance to the topic of the review. FINDINGS: According to published research, orally administered collagen hydrolysate has been shown to be absorbed intestinally and to accumulate in cartilage. Collagen hydrolysate ingestion stimulates a statistically significant increase in synthesis of extracellular matrix macromolecules by chondrocytes (p < 0.05 compared with untreated controls). These findings suggest mechanisms that might help patients affected by joint disorders such as OA. Four open-label and three double-blind studies were identified and reviewed; although many of these studies did not provide key information--such as the statistical significance of the findings--they showed collagen hydrolysate to be safe and to provide improvement in some measures of pain and function in some men and women with OA or other arthritic conditions. CONCLUSION: A growing body of evidence provides a rationale for the use of collagen hydrolysate for patients with OA. It is hoped that ongoing and future research will clarify how collagen hydrolysate provides its clinical effects and determine which populations are most appropriate for treatment with this supplement.

Celecoxib versus naproxen and diclofenac in osteoarthritis patients: SUCCESS-I Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) safety of celecoxib, compared with nonspecific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), among patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS: A total of 13274 osteoarthritis patients from 39 countries were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either celecoxib 100 mg twice daily (BID), celecoxib 200 mg BID, or nonselective NSAID therapy (diclofenac 50 mg BID or naproxen 500 mg BID) for 12 weeks. Standard validated measures were used to assess osteoarthritis efficacy. Serious UGI events were evaluated by 2 blinded, independent, gastrointestinal events committees. RESULTS: Results from all primary efficacy assessments showed that both dosages of celecoxib were as effective as NSAIDs in treating osteoarthritis. Significantly more ulcer complications occurred within the nonselective NSAID group (0.8/100 patient-years) compared with the celecoxib group (0.1/100 patient-years) (odds ratio = 7.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46 to 33.80; P =.008). There were fewer ulcer complications in the celecoxib group compared with the NSAID group, both in patients taking concomitant aspirin and those not taking aspirin, but the difference reached statistical significance only in the latter comparison. The number of cardiovascular thromboembolic events was low and not statistically different between the groups (eg, myocardial infarction rates: celecoxib 10 events [0.55/100 patient-years] vs NSAIDs 1 event [0.11/100 patient-years], (P =.11), but the study was not powered to detect such differences. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of osteoarthritis, celecoxib is as effective as the nonspecific NSAIDs naproxen and diclofenac, but has significantly fewer serious upper gastrointestinal events.

Cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitors and upper gastrointestinal tolerability in patients with osteoarthritis receiving concomitant low dose aspirin: pooled analysis of 2 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability of celecoxib and rofecoxib in elderly hypertensive patients with osteoarthritis (OA) with or without coadministration of low dose aspirin (ASA) (< or = 325 mg daily). METHODS: Two independently conducted, multicenter, double blind, randomized controlled trials designed to evaluate GI tolerability, in addition to cardiorenal study endpoints, in patients randomized to celecoxib 200 mg once daily (qd; n = 960) or rofecoxib 25 mg qd (n = 942) were analyzed. GI tolerability was assessed using investigator-reported GI symptoms, prespecified as abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and nausea. The pooled incidences of the 3 reported GI symptoms, regardless of severity (mild and moderate to severe), and the incidences of mild or moderate to severe GI symptoms individually were evaluated. RESULTS: In the pooled population, the incidence of the 3 GI symptoms, regardless of severity, was not significantly different for patients receiving celecoxib or rofecoxib. In contrast, the aggregate incidence of moderate to severe GI symptoms for patients receiving rofecoxib (5.2%) was significantly greater than for those receiving celecoxib (3.2%; p < 0.05). Notably, the significant difference between the 2 arms was more pronounced in the population of patients receiving concomitant low dose ASA (rofecoxib 9.7% vs celecoxib 1.5%; p < 0.001). The incidence of moderate to severe GI symptoms was similar with rofecoxib (3.3%) and celecoxib (3.9%; p = 0.564) treatment in patients who did not receive low dose ASA. CONCLUSION: While the GI tolerability was similar in the 2 arms of the entire pooled population, celecoxib 200 mg qd was associated with a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe GI symptoms than rofecoxib 25 mg qd in patients receiving concomitant low dose ASA.