Dataset Information

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

ABSTRACT: Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) is an absolute threshold proposed for symptomatic variables in osteoarthritis (OA) to determine the point beyond which patients consider themselves well and, as such, are satisfied with treatment. Two large previously reported studies of knee OA have shown that both lumiracoxib and celecoxib were superior to placebo in terms of conventional outcome measures. To assess the clinical relevance of these results from the patient's perspective, the same data pooled from these two studies were analysed with respect to the PASS. In total, 3,235 patients were included in two multicentre, randomised, double-blind studies of identical design. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily (n = 811), lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily with an initial dose of lumiracoxib 200 mg once daily for the first 2 weeks (100 mg once daily with initial dose [n = 805]), celecoxib 200 mg once daily (n = 813), or placebo (n = 806) for 13 weeks. Treatments were compared with respect to the PASS criteria (for OA pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Likert version 3.1 [WOMAC LK 3.1] Function [difficulty in performing daily activities] subscale score). At week 13, 43.3%, 45.3%, and 42.2% of patients in the lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily, lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily with initial dose, and the celecoxib 200 mg once daily groups, respectively, considered their current states as satisfactory versus 35.5% in the placebo group. Similar results were observed for patient's global assessment of disease activity and WOMAC LK 3.1 Function subscale score. This post hoc analysis suggests that the statistical significance of the results observed with lumiracoxib or celecoxib compared with placebo using conventional outcome variables is complemented by clinical relevance to the patient.NCT00366938 and NCT00367315.

SUBMITTER: Dougados M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1860070 | biostudies-literature | 2007

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

Dougados Maxime M Moore Alan A Yu Shaohua S Gitton Xavier X

Arthritis research & therapy 20070101 1

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) is an absolute threshold proposed for symptomatic variables in osteoarthritis (OA) to determine the point beyond which patients consider themselves well and, as such, are satisfied with treatment. Two large previously reported studies of knee OA have shown that both lumiracoxib and celecoxib were superior to placebo in terms of conventional outcome measures. To assess the clinical relevance of these results from the patient's perspective ...[more]

PMID: 17266764

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the morphine-sparing effects of the sequential treatment versus placebo in subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effects on pain relief, inflammation control and functional rehabilitation after TKA and safety.DesignDouble-blind, pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.SettingFour tertiary hospitals in China.Participants246 consecutive patients who underwent elective unilateral TKA because of osteoarthritis (OA).InterventionsPatients were randomised 1:1 to the parecoxib/celecoxib group or the control group. The patients in the parecoxib/celecoxib group were supplied sequential treatment with intravenous parecoxib 40 mg (every 12 hours) for the first 3 days after surgery, followed by oral celecoxib 200 mg (every 12 hours) for up to 6 weeks. The patients in the control group were supplied with the corresponding placebo under the same instructions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was the cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks post operation (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints included the Knee Society Score, patient-reported outcomes and the cumulative opioid consumption.ResultsThe cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks was significantly smaller in the parecoxib/celecoxib group than in the control group (median difference, 57.31 (95% CI 34.66 to 110.33)). The parecoxib/celecoxib group achieving superior Knee Society Scores and EQ-5D scores and greater Visual Analogue Scale score reduction during 6 weeks. Interleukin 6, erythrocyte sedation rate and C-reactive protein levels were reduced at 72 hours, 2 weeks and 4 weeks and prostaglandin E2 levels were reduced at 48 hours and 72 hours in the parecoxib/celecoxib group compared with the placebo group. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the parecoxib/celecoxib group.ConclusionsThe sequential intravenous parecoxib followed by oral celecoxib regimen reduces morphine consumption, achieves better pain control and functional recovery and leads to less AEs than placebo after TKA for OA.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02198924).

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.MethodsDouble-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ?301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.ResultsThe adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.ConclusionsCS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.Trial registration numberNCT01425853.

Project description:Preclinical studies indicate that the enzyme cyclooxygenase 2 plays an important role in ultraviolet-induced skin cancers. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, as a chemopreventive agent for actinic keratoses, the premalignant precursor of nonmelanoma skin cancers, and for nonmelanoma skin cancers, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and basal cell carcinomas (BCCs).A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial involving 240 subjects aged 37-87 years with 10-40 actinic keratoses was conducted at eight US academic medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg of celecoxib or placebo administered orally twice daily for 9 months. Subjects were evaluated at 3, 6, 9 (ie, completion of treatment), and 11 months after randomization. The primary endpoint was the number of new actinic keratoses at the 9-month visit as a percentage of the number at the time of randomization. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the incidence of actinic keratoses was compared between the two groups using t tests. In exploratory analyses, we evaluated the number of nonmelanoma skin cancers combined and SCCs and BCCs separately per patient at 11 months after randomization using Poisson regression, after adjustment for patient characteristics and time on study. The numbers of adverse events in the two treatment arms were compared using ?(2) or Fisher exact tests. All statistical tests were two-sided.There was no difference in the incidence of actinic keratoses between the two groups at 9 months after randomization. However, at 11 months after randomization, there were fewer nonmelanoma skin cancers in the celecoxib arm than in the placebo arm (mean cumulative tumor number per patient 0.14 vs 0.35; rate ratio [RR] = .43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75; P = .003). After adjusting for age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, history of actinic keratosis at randomization, nonmelanoma skin cancer history, and patient time on study, the number of nonmelanoma skin cancers was lower in the celecoxib arm than in the placebo arm (RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.72, P = .002) as were the numbers of BCCs (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.93, P = .032) and SCCs (RR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.93, P = .032). Serious and cardiovascular adverse events were similar in the two groups.Celecoxib may be effective for prevention of SCCs and BCCs in individuals who have extensive actinic damage and are at high risk for development of nonmelanoma skin cancers.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Osteoarthritis (OA) pathophysiology is driven in part by joint inflammation. Resveratrol has in vitro anti-inflammatory properties. We aim to assess the efficacy of oral resveratrol for knee pain at 3 months in people with knee OA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Overall, 164 individuals with knee OA fulfilling 1986 American College of Rheumatology criteria will be recruited in three tertiary care centres in France and randomised to receive oral resveratrol, 40?mg (two caplets) two times per day for 1?week, then 20?mg (one caplet) two times per day or a matching placebo for a total of 6 months. Randomisation will be centralised and stratified by centre. The allocation ratio of assignments will be 1:1. The primary outcome will be the mean change from baseline in knee pain on a self-administered 11-point pain Numeric Rating Scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will be the mean change in knee pain at 6 months, the function subscore of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score, patient global assessment, proportion of responders according to the Osteoarthritis Research Society International-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology criteria at 3 and 6 months, and self-reported number of intra-articular injections of corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid and consumption of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs since the last contact. Other interventions will be allowed and self-reported. Adherence will be monitored by capsule counts and a booklet and adverse events recorded at 3 and 6 months. Statisticians, treating physicians and participants will be blinded to the allocated treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL) trial has been authorised by the AgenceNationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé and ethics were approved by the Comité deProtection des Personnes Île-de-France III. The findings of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at conferences. The design of ARTHROL will warrant the translation of its findings into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02905799. Pre-results. First received: 14 September 2016. Last updated: 16 September 2016. Status: not yet recruiting.

Project description:IntroductionPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a potentially efficacious treatment for ankle osteoarthritis (OA), but its use has not been examined in high-quality studies. Systematic reviews show that PRP injections significantly decrease pain and improve function in patients with knee OA. Ankle OA is more common than hip or knee OA in the young active population; with a prevalence of 3.4%.PRP injections in ankle OA are shown to be safe and improve quality of life over time, but no randomised controlled trial has been conducted. Our randomised controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of PRP injections for symptom reduction and functional improvement, compared with placebo, in the treatment of ankle (talocrural) OA.Methods and analysisWe will conduct the Platelet-Rich plasma Injection Management for Ankle OA study: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. One hundred patients suffering from ankle OA will be randomised into two treatment groups: PRP injection or placebo (saline) injection. Both groups will receive two injections of PRP or placebo at an interval of 6 weeks. Primary outcome is the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes determined at several follow-up moments up to 5 years, include Ankle Osteoarthritis Score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, pain subscale of (0-40), Visual Analogue Scale score (0-100), Ankle Activity Score (0-10), subjective patient satisfaction Short Form Health Survey-36, Global Attainment Scaling and the EuroQol-5 dimensions-3 levels utility score. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed at 1 year.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee Amsterdam Medical Center, the Netherlands (ABR 2018-042, approved 23 July 2018) and registered in the Netherlands trial register (NTR7261). Results and new knowledge will be disseminated through the Dutch Arthritis Association (ReumaNederland), Dutch patient federation, conferences and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNTR7261.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multicentre trials investigating food allergies by double blind placebo controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) need standardized procedures, challenge meals and evaluation criteria. We aimed at developing a standardized approach for identifying patients with birch related soy allergy by means of DBPCFC to soy, including determination of threshold levels, in a multicentre setting. METHODS:Microbiologically stable soy challenge meals were composed of protein isolate with consistent Gly m 4 levels. Patients sensitized to main birch allergen Bet v 1 and concomitant sensitization to its soy homologue Gly m 4 underwent DBPCFC. Outcome was defined according to presence and/or absence of ten objective signs and intensity of eight subjective symptoms as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS:138 adult subjects (63.8% female, mean age 38 years) underwent DBPCFC. Challenge meals and defined evaluation criteria showed good applicability in all centres involved. 45.7% presented with objective signs and 65.2% with subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Placebo challenge meals elicited non-cardiovascular objective signs in 11.6%. In 82 (59.4%) subjects DBPCFC was judged as positive. 70.7% of DPBCFC+ showed objective signs and 85.4% subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Subjective symptoms to soy challenge meal in DBPCFC+ subjects started at significantly lower dose levels than objective signs (p < 0.001). Median cumulative eliciting doses for first objective signs in DBPCFC+ subjects were 4.7 g [0.7-24.7] and 0.7 g [0.2-4.7] total soy protein for first subjective symptoms (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:We present the hitherto largest group of adults with Bet v 1 and Gly m 4 sensitization being investigated by DBPCFC. In this type of food allergy evaluation of DBPCFC outcome should not only include monitoring of objective signs but also scoring of subjective symptoms. Our data may contribute to standardize DBPCFC in pollen-related food allergy in multicentre settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT: 2009-011737-27.

Project description:Few studies with a limited number of patients have provided indications that cashew-allergic patients may experience severe allergic reactions to minimal amounts of cashew nut. The objectives of this multicentre study were to assess the clinical relevance of cashew nut sensitisation, to study the clinical reaction patterns in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests and to establish the amount of cashew nuts that can elicit an allergic reaction.A total of 179 children were included (median age 9.0 years; range 2-17 years) with cashew nut sensitisation and a clinical history of reactions to cashew nuts or unknown exposure. Sensitised children who could tolerate cashew nuts were excluded. The study included three clinical visits and a telephone consultation. During the first visit, the medical history was evaluated, physical examinations were conducted, blood samples were drawn and skin prick tests were performed. The children underwent a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test with cashew nut during the second and third visits. The study showed that 137 (76.5%) of the sensitised children suspected of allergy to cashew nut had a positive double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test, with 46% (63) manifesting subjective symptoms to the lowest dose of 1 mg cashew nut protein and 11% (15) developing objective symptoms to the lowest dose. Children most frequently had gastro-intestinal symptoms, followed by oral allergy and skin symptoms. A total of 36% (49/137) of the children experienced an anaphylactic reaction and 6% (8/137) of the children were treated with epinephrine.This prospective study demonstrated a strikingly high percentage of clinical reactions to cashew nut in this third line population. Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine, were observed. These reactions were to minimal amounts of cashew nut, demonstrated the high potency of this allergens.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed NTR3572.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

Publications

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets