A double-blind,parallel trial of oxaprozin versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis

Summary

A double-blind trial was carried out in 24 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip to compare the efficacy and tolerance of oxaprozin with that of naproxen. Patients were assigned at random to receive fixed doses of either 1200?mg oxaprozin once daily or 250?mg naproxen 3-times daily over a period of 8 weeks. Assessments made on entry and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment showed that in the oxaprozin group there were significant mean decreases, indicating improvement in patient's condition, with respect to observer's opinion, patient's opinion, pain intensity and activity impairment at both on-therapy visits. In the naproxen group, there were significant mean decreases with respect to observer's opinion, patient's opinion, pain intensity and time to walk 15 metres. None of the mean differences between the groups was statistically significant. Adverse effects were reported for 3 of the 12 oxaprozin patients and 6 of the 12 naproxen patients. The specific adverse effects noted for more than I patient were diarrhoea for oxaprozin and dyspepsia for naproxen. No difference between the groups was statistically significant from this point of view. Laboratory determinations showed no toxicity in either group. It is concluded that once-daily oxaprozin is an effective and well-tolerated form of treatment for osteoarthritis, equivalent to naproxen given 3–times daily.     

Double-blind, parallel comparison of etodolac and indomethacin in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

The efficacy and tolerability of etodolac and indomethacin were compared in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Sixty-four patients entered a double-blind, parallel trial and were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg etodolac twice daily (n = 31) or 50 mg indomethacin 3-times daily (n = 33) for 6 weeks. Both groups showed significant (p less than or equal to 0.05) improvement from baseline in all efficacy assessments at the final evaluation. However, significantly (p less than or equal to 0.05) greater decreases from baseline were seen for etodolac than for indomethacin in patients' global evaluation, pain intensity, night pain, standing pain, walking pain, pain getting up from a chair, tenderness on pressure, and knee flexion. In addition, 67% of the patients in the etodolac group indicated improvement in their condition at the final evaluation, compared with 53% of the patients who received indomethacin. No patients in the etodolac group withdrew because of adverse reactions compared to 4 patients in the indomethacin group. Furthermore, significantly more patients in the indomethacin group (52%) than in the etodolac group (19%) reported drug-related adverse reactions. Thus, the results of this study strongly indicate that etodolac is more effective and produces fewer side-effects than indomethacin in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis.     

Controlled-release naproxen compared with isoxicam in patients with osteoarthritis

The therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of a new controlled-release 1000 mg tablet of naproxen (naproxen CR) were compared with 200 mg isoxicam in 100 out-patients with osteoarthritis. Medications were administered once daily for 4 weeks in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel trial. Patients were assessed for duration of stiffness, global pain, pain in the worst affected joint, night pain, pain on full passive movement, and pain on selected activity. No statistically significant differences were found between naproxen CR and isoxicam for any of the efficacy variables. Only 3 patients (2 with naproxen CR, 1 with isoxicam) reported adverse events, all mild to moderate; no patient withdrew from the study. At the conclusion of the study, patients and physician evaluated therapeutic response independently; both drugs provided steady improvement as judged by patients and physician. Both physician and patients evaluated naproxen CR as very good or good for 36 (72%) patients, and isoxicam as good or very good for 35 (73%) patients. Naproxen CR and isoxicam proved equally effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of osteoarthritis in this study.     

Clinical therapeutic trial of sodium meclofenamate and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis, with comments on the use of placebos in clinical trials

Forty patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were entered into a single-blind study of 12-weeks' duration to compare the efficacy and tolerance of 100 mg sodium meclofenamate 3-times daily and 250 mg naproxen twice daily. Disease activity was defined by the presence of a Ritchie Articular Index score of greater than 15. Patients were assessed at 4-week intervals. Analysis of variance of the data from those patients who completed 12 weeks in the trial showed that in the sodium meclofenamate group there was a significant improvement in articular index, left grip strength, pain severity and patients' global assessment over the course of the study. In the naproxen group, there was a significant improvement in articular index, grip strength and pain severity over the study. Pairwise comparisons showed that morning stiffness improved significantly from baseline to 12 weeks only, in both treatment groups. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups for any of the measurements at any time period during the study. In the sodium meclofenamate group, there were 4 drop-outs due to inadequate efficacy and 6 in the naproxen group. Four patients in the sodium meclofenamate group and 2 patients in the naproxen group dropped out of the study because of side-effects, primarily nausea. These results suggest that sodium meclofenamate was equally well tolerated and as effective as naproxen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in this group of patients.     

Clinical therapeutic trial of sodium meclofenamate and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis,with comments on the use of placebos in clinical trials

Summary

Forty patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were entered into a single-blind study of 12-weeks' duration to compare the efficacy and tolerance of 100?mg sodium meclofenamate 3-times daily and 250?mg naproxen twice daily. Disease activity was defined by the presence of a Ritchie Articular Index score of greater than 15. Patients were assessed at 4-week intervals. Analysis of variance of the data from those patients who completed 12 weeks in the trial showed that in the sodium meclofenamate group there was a significant improvement in articular index, left grip strength, pain severity and patients' global assessment over the course of the study. In the naproxen group, there was a significant improvement in articular index, grip strength and pain severity over the study. Pairwise comparisons showed that morning stiffness improved significantly from baseline to 12 weeks only, in both treatment groups. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups for any of the measurements at any time period during the study. In the sodium meclofenamate group, there were 4 drop-outs due to inadequate efficacy and 6 in the naproxen group. Four patients in the sodium meclofenamate group and 2 patients in the naproxen group dropped out of the study because of side-effects, primarily nausea. These results suggest that sodium meclofenamate was equally well tolerated and as effective as naproxen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in this group of patients.     

The efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release dihydrocodeine tablets and combination dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol tablets in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the hips.

A double-blind, parallel group study was undertaken in general practice to compare the efficacy of and tolerability to controlled-release (CR) dihydrocodeine tablets and combination dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol tablets in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the hip(s). Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to receive either CR dihydrocodeine (60 mg) tablets (1 tablet twice daily to 2 tablets daily) or combination dextropropoxyphene (32.5 mg)/paracetamol (325 mg) tablets (2 tablets 3-times daily to 2 tablets 4-times daily) for a period of 2 weeks. Patients recorded in a diary card 4 times a day the severity of their pain and each morning whether or not they woke during the night due to pain in their hip(s). On entry to the study, after the first week's treatment and at the final visit another week later, the investigator assessed the patient's severity of pain on passive movement of the hip and also noted the severity of any volunteered symptoms or side-effects. After 2-weeks' treatment, pain on passive movement of the hip joint was statistically significantly less severe on CR dihydrocodeine than on dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol (p = 0.02). Nausea and vomiting were more pronounced in the dihydrocodeine than in the dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol group after the first week's treatment but by the end of the study there was no significant treatment difference in any of the volunteered side-effects. Patients on CR dihydrocodeine developed some constipation as expected and the dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol patients suffered from impaired concentration. More patients withdrew on CR dihydrocodeine than on dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol but these withdrawals tended to occur early in the trial just after initiating therapy. Tolerance in terms of withdrawals or side-effect profile did not appear to the dosage of each preparation administered. It is concluded that after 2-weeks' treatment CR dihydrocodeine provided superior analgesia to dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol with no difference in side-effects. Furthermore, CR dihydrocodeine has the advantage of twice rather than 3 or 4-times daily dosing.     

A study of sulindac versus ibuprofen in elderly patients with osteoarthritis

A study was carried out in 30 elderly patients, aged between 65 and 89 years, with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee joints to assess the efficacy and tolerance of sulindac compared with ibuprofen. Patients were allocated at random to receive either 200 mg sulindac twice daily or 400 mg ibuprofen 3-times daily for 12 weeks. The results showed that whilst both drugs produced improvement in the patient symptoms assessed, the only improvements reaching a statistically significant level were those for weight-bearing pain, pain on passive movement of the left lower limb joints and disease activity in the sulindac group. Both drugs were well tolerated and few side-effects were reported. However, 1 patient in the sulindac group had haematemesis and melaena (Week 1) and 1 in the ibuprofen group developed a rash (Week 9) and had to be withdrawn.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of naproxen CR and nabumetone in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: To comparre the safety and efficacy of naproxen CR (1,000 mg once daily) with that of nabumetone (1,000 mg once daily) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis(OA). METHODS: A total of 159 Korean patients (80 in the naproxen CR group and 79 in the nabumetone group) were enrolled in this 4-week, single-blind, controlled, randomized, parallel study and an intention-to-treat model was used for data analysis. Six efficacy parameters were measured: Lequesne index, visual analogue pain scale at rest and atactivity, patient's and physician's global assessment, and time to walk 50 feet. RESULTS: Significant improvement in all efficacy parameters except time to walk 50 feet occurred at Week 2 and Week 4 in both groups. Themean improvement from baseline at Week 2 and Week 4 for the efficacy variables was not different between naproxen CR and nabumetone group. Twenty-four patients (30%) in the naproxen CR group and 18 patients (22.8%) in the nabumetone group withdrew from the study. Among them, only 1patient in the naproxen CR group terminated the study prematurely due to an adverse event of dyspepsia. No statistically significant difference in the frequency of adverse events, including gastrointestinal symptoms, was observed between these 2 groups during the treatment period. Significant laboratory abnormalities also did not occur during the study period in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Naproxen CR is an effective and tolerable drug in the treatment of knee OA. Efficacy and safety profiles are comparable to those of nabumetone.     

Oxaprozin versus diclofenac in NSAID-refractory periarthritis pain of the shoulder

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oxaprozin in comparison with diclofenac in patients with periarthritis pain of the shoulder previously unsuccessfully treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs other than diclofenac and oxaprozin. METHODS: In this open, multicentre, randomised, controlled study, eligible patients with periarthritis of the shoulder were randomised to receive either oxaprozin 1200 mg once daily (n = 49) or diclofenac 50 mg three times daily (n = 47). The treatment period was 15 +/- 1 days. The study was planned on a hypothesis of equivalence between the two study drugs. The primary study endpoint was the change from baseline at day 15 in the patient-assessed shoulder pain score. Secondary efficacy variables included investigator-assessed shoulder function, patient-assessed quality of life on the Short-Form-36 (SF-36) Acute Health Survey and both patients' and investigators' overall assessment of efficacy. RESULTS: At day 15, the mean changes in shoulder pain score from baseline in the oxaprozin and diclofenac groups were -5.85 +/- SD 4.62 and -5.54 +/- SD 4.41, respectively. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant, confirming the hypothesis of the study that oxaprozin is as effective as diclofenac. Investigator-assessed shoulder function improved in both groups but more so in the oxaprozin group (p = 0.028 at day 15). Quality of life as measured by SF-36 total score was also improved in both treatment groups, with a trend toward greater improvement in the oxaprozin group. Furthermore, a significantly more favourable effect on the SF-36 'mental health' item was observed in oxaprozin compared with diclofenac-treated patients at day 15 (p = 0.0202). As assessed by investigators, the overall efficacy of oxaprozin was superior to that for diclofenac at visit 3 (8 +/- 1 days) (p = 0.0067). Patients also assessed the overall efficacy of oxaprozin as superior to that of diclofenac at visits 3 (8 +/- 1 days) (p = 0.0235) and 4 (15 +/- 1 days) (p = 0.0272). Only six adverse events, all of which were mild or moderate in intensity and occurred in four diclofenac recipients, were observed in the study. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, once-daily oxaprozin proved to be as effective as diclofenac three times daily in reducing the primary efficacy variable of patient-assessed shoulder pain score in patients with periarthritis of the shoulder refractory to previous treatments with other NSAIDs. Oxaprozin was shown to be superior to diclofenac in improving shoulder function and was considered by investigators and patients to have greater overall efficacy than diclofenac. In addition, oxaprozin showed a trend toward superior results in improving patients' quality of life compared with diclofenac. A trend towards better tolerability results for oxaprozin compared with diclofenac was also noted.     

A study of non-articular rheumatic disorders and their response to treatment with naproxen sodium.

A group of 85 patients suffering from non-articular rheumatic disorders was studied in an open trial of naproxen sodium in general practice. Patients were assessed and then treated for 7 days with naproxen sodium at a dosage of 275 mg 3 or 4-times daily depending on the severity of pain. Patients were asked to keep a daily record of symptoms and were re-assessed by the doctor after 7 days and, in some cases, after 14 days. Pain and limitation of movement were the predominant symptoms at admission. Patients' daily records showed statistically significant reductions in pain from Day 1 and significant reductions of limitation of movement from Day 2 of the study. At the 7-day follow-up, 27 were cured, 35 improved, 19 not changed or worse, and 4 were not assessed. Thirty patients were given a second weeks' therapy and at the end of this period 24 were cured or improved. Indigestion was the most common side-effect, but only 1 patient withdrew from the trial because of this. One patient developed a rash and was withdrawn from the trial. Both patients were taking the lower dose.     

The efficacy and tolerability of enteric and non-enteric coated naproxen tablets: a double-blind study in patients with osteoarthritis.

A double-blind, crossover study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel enteric coated 500 mg naproxen tablet with normal release 500 mg naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis. Eighty-eight patients were randomly allocated to receive enteric coated naproxen as a single daily dose of 2 tablets at night or 1 normal release naproxen tablet twice daily for a period of 3 weeks, followed by the alternative treatment for a further period of 3 weeks. The results of patient and doctor assessments showed that both treatments were increasingly efficacious, with a significant period effect found in the measures for pain on passive movement and duration of morning stiffness. No significant treatment differences were seen in any of the measures of efficacy and tolerability, although there were more withdrawals on normal release than on enteric coated naproxen (p = 0.07). It was concluded that enteric coated naproxen given as a single 1 g dose at night and normal release 500 mg naproxen given twice daily are equally efficacious and well tolerated.     

Double-blind comparison of etodolac SR and diclofenac SR in the treatment of patients with degenerative joint disease of the knee.

An on-going multi-centre, double-blind, parallel-group study is being carried out to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sustained-release (SR) formulations of etodolac and diclofenac in patients with degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis) of the knee. An interim analysis of the findings has been made for 64 patients from two centres which have now completed their part in the study. Thirty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive 600 mg etodolac SR once daily for 4 weeks; the remaining 32 patients received 100 mg diclofenac SR. Primary efficacy assessments rated on a 5-point categorical scale were patient and physician overall assessments of the patient's condition, night pain and pain intensity. Secondary efficacy parameters included weight-bearing pain, stiffness duration, joint tenderness on pressure, degree of swelling and erythema, degree of knee flexion and time to walk 15 metres. The results showed that for both etodolac SR and diclofenac SR treatment groups there was an improvement from baseline in all efficacy parameters at the last visit and no statistically significant difference was observed between treatments. However, although not statistically significant, the improvement rate in the patient's condition at Week 2 was slightly greater in the etodolac SR treatment group, suggesting that improvement may occur more rapidly with etodolac SR than with diclofenac SR. With regard to tolerability, 5 patients in the etodolac SR treatment group and 3 in the diclofenac SR group withdrew from the study because of adverse reactions. Two events (dyspepsia and mouth ulceration) in the etodolac SR group and 4 events (headache, glossitis, depression and insomnia) in the diclofenac SR group were considered to be definitely drug-related. Dyspepsia was reported by 3 patients (1 withdrawal) treated with etodolac SR and by 4 patients (2 withdrawals) treated with diclofenac SR. A statistically significant decrease was observed in haemoglobin and haematocrit values after 4 weeks of treatment in the diclofenac SR group, but this was not considered to be clinically important. In addition, there were no clinically significant changes in blood chemistry and urinalysis for either treatments. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that 600 mg etodolac SR once daily for 4 weeks is effective in the treatment of patients with degenerative joint disease of the knee, as is 100 mg diclofenac SR. In addition, both drugs have comparable tolerability profiles.     

Celecoxib: a review of its use in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and acute pain

Celecoxib is a cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitor that exhibits relative in vitro and ex vivo selectivity for COX-2 over COX-1. Results of randomised double-blind multicentre studies indicate that celecoxib is superior to placebo and has similar efficacy as conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in improving the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Analgesic efficacy and improvements in functional status are apparent within 2 weeks of starting therapy and are maintained throughout treatment. Available data suggest that celecoxib has analgesic efficacy in patients with postsurgical dental pain, although this is yet to be confirmed. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, celecoxib 100 and 200 mg and naproxen 500 mg twice daily were similarly efficacious and superior to placebo. Once and twice daily celecoxib dosage regimens provided comparable efficacy. Improvements in physical function paralleled those in pain relief. Celecoxib also has efficacy in treating the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis of the hip. The effects of celecoxib were not diminished in elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. All dosages of celecoxib (100 to 400 mg twice daily) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily produced significant anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily showed sustained symptomatic improvements similar to those of twice daily slow-release diclofenac 75 mg over a 24-week period. Celecoxib was well tolerated in clinical trials. Upper gastrointestinal complications occurred in significantly fewer patients treated with twice daily celecoxib 25 to 400 mg than in those receiving comparator NSAIDs. There was no evidence of a dose relationship in endoscopic ulcer development and incidences in celecoxib and placebo recipients were lower than in those receiving twice daily naproxen 500 mg or ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily. Conclusions: Celecoxib is the first COX-2 specific inhibitor approved for use in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Celecoxib produces significant improvements in pain and inflammation and these effects are maintained during treatment for up 24 weeks in clinical trials. Studies indicate that celecoxib has similar efficacy to conventional NSAIDs in relieving pain and improving functional status, but is associated with a lower incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulceration and complications. This promising gastrointestinal safety profile, together with sustained symptomatic relief, places celecoxib as a useful alternative for the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, particularly in patients at high risk of developing gastrointestinal events. Although data are encouraging, its place in acute pain states remains to be established.     

Efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac dispersible in elderly patients with osteoarthritis.

The efficacy and tolerability of a new dispersible formulation of diclofenac were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre study in patients aged 60 to 80 years suffering from osteoarthritis. A total of 314 elderly patients with a mean age of 68.9 years received either 50 mg diclofenac dispersible or placebo 3-times daily for a period of 4 weeks, with paracetamol being allowed as rescue analgesic for both treatment groups. The study consisted of a baseline evaluation and two follow-up visits after 14 and 28 days of treatment. The following clinical parameters were assessed: pain at rest, on movement and on local pressure; global severity of pain; effect of pain on daily activity; duration of stiffness after immobility; rescue analgesic consumption; overall opinion of the investigator on efficacy; and occurrence of adverse events. At either one or both post-treatment assessments, diclofenac dispersible was found to be significantly superior to placebo for almost all measures of efficacy (p less than or equal to 0.05). Thirty (14.4%) patients out of 208 assessed in the diclofenac group reported adverse events compared to 18 (17%) out of 106 who received placebo; therapy was discontinued prematurely due to poor tolerability in 4.8% and 5.7% of patients, respectively. The adverse events were predominantly related to the gastro-intestinal system and were mostly mild to moderate in severity. The results of this 4-week study thus demonstrate that diclofenac dispersible is not only effective in treating osteoarthritis in the elderly but also has an acceptable tolerability profile in a patient population which is especially vulnerable to adverse effects induced by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.     

Diflunisal in osteoarthrosis of the hip and knee

Summary

A double-blind randomized trial was carried out in 60 patients with osteoarthrosis of the hip or knee to assess the relative efficacy and tolerance of treatment with diflunisal twice daily (maximum 750?mg per day) or with aspirin given 4-times daily (maximum 3 g per day) over a period of 12 weeks. Clinical assessments were made on entry and at regular intervals of weight-bearing pain, night pain, specific function pain, inactivity stiffness, and range of joint movement. A considerable proportion of patients in both groups showed improvement in all parameters except for limitation of movement. The difference in response between the two groups was not statistically significant, neither was the patients' overall opinion of response to or clinician's assessment of therapeutic efficacy of either drug treatment at the end of the trial. Ten of the 29 patients in the aspirin group had to withdraw because of adverse reactions, mainly gastro-intestinal, compared with 4 of the 31 patients in the diflunisal group. The overall incidence of side-effects in all patients was lower in the diflunisal group, and those that were reported were less disturbing. At the end of the double-blind study, patients were given the option to continue with the particular drug treatment for a further two 13-week periods. More patients chose to remain on diflunisal than on aspirin at the end of each of the three periods and the difference was statistically significant.     

Oxaprozin. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy

Oxaprozin is a newer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug advocated for use in painful rheumatic and inflammatory conditions. As is the case with some other newer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oxaprozin offers the convenience of once-daily administration. Published data suggest that oxaprozin 1200 mg once daily is comparable in effectiveness with usual dosages of aspirin, ibuprofen, indomethacin, naproxen, piroxicam and sulindac in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. More controlled clinical trials in adequate numbers of patients are necessary to evaluate its potential in other rheumatic and inflammatory conditions. Oxaprozin produced fewer gastrointestinal side effects than aspirin, and the short term tolerability of oxaprozin was similar to that of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. If further definition of its efficacy and tolerability compared with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during long term therapy confirms these initially favourable results, then oxaprozin would appear to offer a useful and convenient alternative in the treatment of painful rheumatic and inflammatory conditions.     

A critical assessment of oxaprozin clinical profile in rheumatic diseases

Oxaprozin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) of the n-propionic acid class without potential for enantiomeric metabolism, used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), musculoskeletal pain and other inflammatory conditions. Oxaprozin has been shown to be effective in a number of animal models of inflammation, pain and pyrexia and has subsequently been shown to be effective and well tolerated in the clinical management of signs and symptoms of adult rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, soft tissue disorders such as bursitis and tendonitis, and post-operative dental pain. The clinical efficacy of oxaprozin is well documented by a great number of clinical trials versus placebo and other NSAIDs. A metaanalysis was performed in order to evaluate the global clinical profile of oxaprozin. A total of 111 reports, articles and abstracts were collected, and 51 were included for analysis according to a predefined methodology. All included studies were double-blind and the majority had parallel arms except 4 which were cross-over. This meta-analysis demonstrated that oxaprozin, in the treatment of RA and OA, has at least equal or superior efficacy in comparison with placebo or standard doses of aspirin, diclofenac ibuprofen, indomethacin, nabumetone, naproxen, piroxicam and zomepirac, and is well tolerated. The meta-analysis confirms oxaprozin as a valid alternative in the treatment of rheumatic disorders.     

Valdecoxib

In ten large, well-controlled, randomised trials (n = 203 to 1089), valdecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase-2, was significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and pain associated with primary dysmenorrhoea, and for postsurgical analgesia. Valdecoxib 1.25 to 10mg twice daily and valdecoxib 10mg once daily were more effective than placebo for the relief of pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, and dosages above 5mg twice daily were similar in efficacy to naproxen 500mg twice daily. Similarly, valdecoxib 5 and 10 mg/day were as effective for osteoarthritis of the hip as naproxen 500mg twice daily. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, valdecoxib 10, 20 or 40 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, and similar in efficacy to naproxen 500mg twice daily; there were no significant differences in efficacy between the three dosages of valdecoxib. Valdecoxib 20 or 40mg administered 1 to 3 hours before and 12, 24 and 36 hours after hip arthroplasty provided significantly better analgesia than placebo, and significantly reduced the amount of morphine taken by patients. Single doses of valdecoxib 10 to 80mg administered before foot or oral surgery provided significantly better analgesia than placebo; when administered after oral surgery, valdecoxib 20 or 40mg provided greater sustained analgesia than oxycodone 10mg/paracetamol 1000mg or rofecoxib 50mg. In contrast to three nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), valdecoxib 40mg twice daily did not cause significant changes in platelet function and bleeding times. Chronic users of NSAIDs who were switched to valdecoxib 10 or 20 mg/day for 12 weeks experienced significantly fewer gastroduodenal erosions or ulcers than patients receiving ibuprofen 2400 mg/day or diclofenac 150 mg/day for 12 weeks. Valdecoxib was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with a similar incidence of adverse events to placebo.     

A double-blind crossover trial of diflunisal and naproxen in osteoarthritis

Fifty patients with osteoarthritis were studied in a double-blind, crossover trial of diflunisal (1000 mg daily) and naproxen (750 mg daily). In the 45 patients who completed the study, no significant difference was noted between the drugs in most of the parameters studied, including evening pain intensity and effectiveness rating by patient and investigator. There was a trend towards greater patient preference for diflunisal, although this trend did not reach statistical significance. Naproxen produced significantly fewer side-effects, although side-effects with both drugs were mild.     

Oxaprozin versus diclofenac in NSAID-refractory periarthritis pain of the shoulder

SUMMARY

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oxaprozin in comparison with diclofenac in patients with periarthritis pain of the shoulder previously unsuccessfully treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs other than diclofenac and oxaprozin.

Methods: In this open, multicentre, randomised, controlled study, eligible patients with periarthritis of the shoulder were randomised to receive either oxaprozin 1200^?mg once daily (^?n?=?49) or diclofenac 50^?mg three times daily (^?n?=?47). The treatment period was 15?± 1 days. The study was planned on a hypothesis of equivalence between the two study drugs. The primary study endpoint was the change from baseline at day 15 in the patient-assessed shoulder pain score. Secondary efficacy variables included investigator-assessed shoulder function, patient-assessed quality of life on the Short-Form-36 (SF-36) Acute Health Survey and both patients’ and investigators’ overall assessment of efficacy.

Results: At day 15, the mean changes in shoulder pain score from baseline in the oxaprozin and diclofenac groups were –5.85?± SD 4.62 and –5.54 ± SD 4.41, respectively. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant, confirming the hypothesis of the study that oxaprozin is as effective as diclofenac. Investigator-assessed shoulder function improved in both groups but more so in the oxaprozin group (^?p?=?0.028 at day 15). Quality of life as measured by SF-36 total score was also improved in both treatment groups, with a trend toward greater improvement in the oxaprozin group. Furthermore, a significantly more favourable effect on the SF-36 ‘mental health’ item was observed in oxaprozin compared with diclofenac-treated patients at day 15 (^?p?=?0.0202). As assessed by investigators, the overall efficacy of oxaprozin was superior to that for diclofenac at visit 3 (8?±?1 days) (^?p?=?0.0067). Patients also assessed the overall efficacy of oxaprozin as superior to that of diclofenac at visits 3 (8?±?1 days) (^?p?=?0.0235) and 4 (15?±?1 days) (^?p?=?0.0272). Only six adverse events, all of which were mild or moderate in intensity and occurred in four diclofenac recipients, were observed in the study.

Conclusions: As expected, once-daily oxaprozin proved to be as effective as diclofenac three times daily in reducing the primary efficacy variable of patient-assessed shoulder pain score in patients with periarthritis of the shoulder refractory to previous treatments with other NSAIDs. Oxaprozin was shown to be superior to diclofenac in improving shoulder function and was considered by investigators and patients to have greater overall efficacy than diclofenac. In addition, oxaprozin showed a trend toward superior results in improving patients’ quality of life compared with diclofenac. A trend towards better tolerability results for oxaprozin compared with diclofenac was also noted.