Dataset Information

Methodology of a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint streamlined safety study of celecoxib versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of the standard care versus celecoxib outcome trial (SCOT).

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors have less upper gastrointestinal toxicity than traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, both COX-2 inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs may be associated with adverse cardiovascular side effects. Data from randomised and observational studies suggest that celecoxib has similar cardiovascular toxicity to traditional NSAIDs. The overall safety balance of a strategy of celecoxib therapy versus traditional NSAID therapy is unknown. The European Medicines Agency requested studies of the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib within Europe. The Standard care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) compares the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib with traditional NSAID therapy in the setting of the European Union healthcare system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:SCOT is a large streamlined safety study conducted in Scotland, England, Denmark and the Netherlands using the Prospective Randomised Open Blinded Endpoint design. Patients aged over 60 years with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established cardiovascular disease and requiring chronic NSAID therapy, are randomised to celecoxib or their previous traditional NSAID. They are then followed up for events by record-linkage within their normal healthcare setting. The hypothesis is non-inferiority with a confidence limit of 1.4. The primary endpoint is the first occurrence of hospitalisation or death for the Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints are (1) first hospitalisation or death for upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications (bleeding, perforation or obstruction); (2) first occurrence of hospitalised upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications or APTC endpoint; (3) first hospitalisation for heart failure; (4) first hospitalisation for APTC endpoint plus heart failure; (5) all-cause mortality and (6) first hospitalisation for new or worsening renal failure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:SCOT has been approved by the relevant ethics committees. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00447759).

SUBMITTER: Macdonald TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3563118 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodology of a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint streamlined safety study of celecoxib versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of the standard care versus celecoxib outcome trial (SCOT).

Macdonald Thomas M TM Mackenzie Isla S IS Wei Li L Hawkey Christopher J CJ Ford Ian I

BMJ open 20130129 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors have less upper gastrointestinal toxicity than traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, both COX-2 inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs may be associated with adverse cardiovascular side effects. Data from randomised and observational studies suggest that celecoxib has similar cardiovascular toxicity to traditional NSAIDs. The overall safety balance of a strategy of celecoxib therapy versus traditional NSAID therap ...[more]

PMID: 23364320

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and conventional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects. We compared the CV safety of switching to celecoxib vs. continuing nsNSAID therapy in a European setting.MethodPatients aged 60 years and over with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established CV disease and taking chronic prescribed nsNSAIDs, were randomized to switch to celecoxib or to continue their previous nsNSAID. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction or other biomarker positive acute coronary syndrome, non-fatal stroke or CV death analysed using a Cox model with a pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 1.4 for the hazard ratio (HR).ResultsIn total, 7297 participants were randomized. During a median 3-year follow-up, fewer subjects than expected developed an on-treatment (OT) primary CV event and the rate was similar for celecoxib, 0.95 per 100 patient-years, and nsNSAIDs, 0.86 per 100 patient-years (HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.50). Comparable intention-to-treat (ITT) rates were 1.14 per 100 patient-years with celecoxib and 1.10 per 100 patient-years with nsNSAIDs (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.33; P = 0.75). Pre-specified non-inferiority was achieved in the ITT analysis. The upper bound of the 95% confidence limit for the absolute increase in OT risk associated with celecoxib treatment was two primary events per 1000 patient-years exposure. There were only 15 adjudicated secondary upper gastrointestinal complication endpoints (0.078/100 patient-years on celecoxib vs. 0.053 on nsNSAIDs OT, 0.078 vs. 0.053 ITT). More gastrointestinal serious adverse reactions and haematological adverse reactions were reported on nsNSAIDs than celecoxib, but more patients withdrew from celecoxib than nsNSAIDs (50.9% patients vs. 30.2%; P < 0.0001).InterpretationIn subjects 60 years and over, free from CV disease and taking prescribed chronic nsNSAIDs, CV events were infrequent and similar on celecoxib and nsNSAIDs. There was no advantage of a strategy of switching prescribed nsNSAIDs to prescribed celecoxib. This study excluded an increased risk of the primary endpoint of more than two events per 1000 patient-years associated with switching to prescribed celecoxib.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00447759; Unique identifier: NCT00447759.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Gout affects 2.5% of the UK's adult population and is now the most common type of inflammatory arthritis. The long-term management of gout requires reduction of serum urate levels and this is most often achieved with use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors, such as allopurinol. Febuxostat is the first new xanthine oxidase inhibitor since allopurinol and was licensed for use in 2008. The European Medicines Agency requested a postlicensing cardiovascular safety study of febuxostat versus allopurinol, which has been named the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined trial (FAST). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:FAST is a cardiovascular safety study using the prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint design. FAST is recruiting in the UK and Denmark. Recruited patients are aged over 60?years, prescribed allopurinol for symptomatic hyperuricaemia and have at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. After an allopurinol lead-in phase where the dose of allopurinol is optimised to achieve European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) urate targets (serum urate <357?µmol/L), patients are randomised to either continue optimal dose allopurinol or to use febuxostat. Patients are followed-up for an average of 3?years. The primary endpoint is first occurrence of the Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints are all cause mortality and hospitalisations for heart failure, unstable, new or worsening angina, coronary or cerebral revascularisation, transient ischaemic attack, non-fatal cardiac arrest, venous and peripheral arterial vascular thrombotic event and arrhythmia with no evidence of ischaemia. The primary analysis is a non-inferiority analysis with a non-inferiority upper limit for the HR for the primary outcome of 1.3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:FAST (ISRCTN72443728) has ethical approval in the UK and Denmark, and results will be published in a peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:FAST is registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACT No: 2011-001883-23) and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN No: ISRCTN72443728).

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration results in improved hydration and clinical outcomes when administered to children with gastroenteritis.DesignSingle centre, two arm, parallel randomised pragmatic controlled trial. Blocked randomisation stratified by site. Participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, investigators, and statisticians were blinded to the treatment assignment.SettingPaediatric emergency department in a tertiary care centre in Toronto, Canada.Participants226 children aged 3 months to 11 years; complete follow-up was obtained on 223 (99%). Eligible children were aged over 90 days, had a diagnosis of dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis, had not responded to oral rehydration, and had been prescribed intravenous rehydration. Children were excluded if they weighed less than 5 kg or more than 33 kg, required fluid restriction, had a suspected surgical condition, or had an insurmountable language barrier. Children were also excluded if they had a history of a chronic systemic disease, abdominal surgery, bilious or bloody vomit, hypotension, or hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia.InterventionsRapid (60 mL/kg) or standard (20 mL/kg) rehydration with 0.9% saline over an hour; subsequent fluids administered according to protocol.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomeclinical rehydration, assessed with a validated scale, two hours after the start of treatment.Secondary outcomesprolonged treatment, mean clinical dehydration scores over the four hour study period, time to discharge, repeat visits to emergency department, adequate oral intake, and physician's comfort with discharge. Data from all randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.Results114 patients were randomised to rapid rehydration and 112 to standard. One child was withdrawn because of severe hyponatraemia at baseline. There was no evidence of a difference between the rapid and standard rehydration groups in the proportions of participants who were rehydrated at two hours (41/114 (36%) v 33/112 (30%); difference 6.5% (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 18.7%; P=0.32). The results did not change after adjustment for weight, baseline dehydration score, and baseline pH (odds ratio 1.8, 0.90 to 3.5; P=0.10). The rates of prolonged treatment were similar (52% rapid v 43% standard; difference 8.9%, 21% to -5%; P=0.19). Although dehydration scores were similar throughout the study period (P=0.96), the median time to discharge was longer in the rapid group (6.3 v 5.0 hours; P=0.03).ConclusionsThere are no relevant clinical benefits from the administration of rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration to haemodynamically stable children deemed to require intravenous rehydration. Trail registration Clinical Trials NCT00392145.

Project description:BackgroundDiffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.MethodsRole of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.DiscussionREVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Project description:BackgroundPediatric adenotonsillectomy (A&T) is associated with prolonged pain and functional limitation. Celecoxib is an effective analgesic in adult surgery patients; however, its analgesic efficacy on pain and functional recovery in pediatric A&T patients is unknown.MethodsDuring 2009-2012, children (age 2-18 yr) scheduled for elective A&T were enrolled in a single-centre double-blind randomized controlled trial. Study participants received either oral placebo or celecoxib 6 mg·kg(-1) preoperatively, followed by 3 mg·kg(-1) twice daily for five doses. The primary outcome was the mean "worst 24-hr pain" scores during postoperative days (PODs) 0-2 on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes for PODs 0-7 included co-analgesic consumption, adverse events, and functional recovery. The impact of the CYP2C9*3 allele - associated with reduced celecoxib hepatic metabolism - on recovery was considered.ResultsOf the 282 children enrolled, 195 (celecoxib = 101, placebo = 94) were included in the primary outcome analysis. While on treatment, children receiving celecoxib experienced a modest reduction in the average pain experienced over PODs 0-2 (7 mm on a VAS; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3 to 14; P = 0.04) and a "clinically significant" reduction (≥ 10 mm on a VAS; P ≤ 0.01) on PODs 0 and 1. During PODs 0-2, the mean acetaminophen consumption was lower in the celecoxib group vs the placebo group (78 mg·kg(-1); 95% CI: 68 to 89 vs 97 mg·kg(-1); 95% CI: 85 to 109, respectively; P = 0.03). No differences in adverse events, functional recovery, or satisfaction were observed by POD 7. The CYP2C9*3 allele was associated with less pain and improved functional recovery.ConclusionsA three-day course of oral celecoxib reduces early pain and co-analgesic consumption; however, an increase in dose, dose frequency, and duration of dose may be required for sustained pain relief in the pediatric setting. The CYP2C9*3 allele may influence recovery. This trial was registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00849966.

Project description:BackgroundInsertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus is one of the commonest neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Infection of the implanted shunt affects up to 15% of these patients, resulting in prolonged hospital treatment, multiple surgeries, and reduced cognition and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic (rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver shunts compared with standard shunts at reducing infection.MethodsIn this parallel, multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt irrespective of age at 21 regional adult and paediatric neurosurgery centres in the UK and Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 in random permuted blocks of three or six) to receive standard shunts (standard shunt group), antibiotic-impregnated (0·15% clindamycin and 0·054% rifampicin; antibiotic shunt group), or silver-impregnated shunts (silver shunt group) through a randomisation sequence generated by an independent statistician. All patients and investigators who recorded and analysed the data were masked for group assignment, which was only disclosed to the neurosurgical staff at the time of operation. Participants receiving a shunt without evidence of infection at the time of insertion were followed up for at least 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure due the infection and was analysed with Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN 49474281.FindingsBetween June 26, 2013, and Oct 9, 2017, we assessed 3505 patients, of whom 1605 aged up to 91 years were randomly assigned to receive either a standard shunt (n=536), an antibiotic-impregnated shunt (n=538), or a silver shunt (n=531). 1594 had a shunt inserted without evidence of infection at the time of insertion (533 in the standard shunt group, 535 in the antibiotic shunt group, and 526 in the silver shunt group) and were followed up for a median of 22 months (IQR 10-24; 53 withdrew from follow-up). 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0·38, 97·5% CI 0·18-0·80, p=0·0038) and 31 (6%) of 526 patients in the silver shunt group (0·99, 0·56-1·74, p=0·96). 135 (25%) patients in the standard shunt group, 127 (23%) in the antibiotic shunt group, and 134 (36%) in the silver shunt group had adverse events, which were not life-threatening and were mostly related to valve or catheter function.InterpretationThe BASICS trial provides evidence to support the adoption of antibiotic shunts in UK patients who are having their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. This practice will benefit patients of all ages by reducing the risk and harm of shunt infection.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:BackgroundOpioid-induced constipation is the most prevalent patient complaint associated with longer-term opioid use and interferes with analgesic efficacy, functionality, quality of life, and patient compliance.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the effects of prolonged-release (PR) oxycodone plus PR naloxone (OXN) vs PR oxycodone (OXY) vs PR morphine (MOR) on bowel function under real-life conditions in chronic low-back pain patients refractory to World Health Organization (WHO) step I and/or II analgesics.Research design and methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of the complete data set from a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) streamlined study (German pain study registry: 2012-0012-05; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials [EudraCT]: 2012-001317-16), carried out in 88 centers in Germany, where a total of 901 patients requiring WHO step III opioids to treat low-back pain were enrolled and prospectively observed for 3 months. Opioid allocation was based on either optional randomization (n=453) or physician decision (n=448). In both groups, treatment doses could be adjusted as per the German prescribing information, and physicians were free to address all side effects and tolerability issues as usual. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients maintaining normal bowel function throughout the complete treatment period, assessed with the Bowel Function Index (BFI). Secondary analyses addressed absolute and relative BFI changes, complete spontaneous bowel movements, use of laxatives, treatment emergent adverse events, analgesic effects, and differences between randomized vs nonrandomized patient groups.ResultsBFI changed significantly with all three WHO step III treatments, however significantly less with OXN vs OXY and MOR despite a significantly higher use of laxatives with the latter ones (P<0.001). The percentage of patients who maintained normal BFI scores despite opioid treatment was 54.5% (164/301) with OXN and was significantly superior to those seen with OXY (32.8% [98/300]) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-3.44; P<0.001) or MOR (29.7% [89/300]) (OR: 2.84, 95% CI: 2.03-3.97; P<0.001). Absolute BFI changes of ≥12mm 100 mm horizontal visual analog scale (VAS100) vs. baseline were seen for OXN in 41.4%, for OXY in 68.7%, and for MOR in 72.3%. Complete spontaneous bowel movements decreased at least by one per week in 10.3% with OXN vs 42.3% for OXY (OR: 6.39, 95% CI 4.13-9.89; P<0.001) and 42.0% for MOR (OR: 6.31, 95% CI: 4.08-9.76; P<0.001). Overall, 359 treatment emergent adverse events (78 [OXN], 134 [OXY], and 147 [MOR]) in 204 patients (41 [OXN], 80 [OXY], and 83 [MOR]) occurred, most affecting the gastrointestinal (49.3%) and the nervous system (39.3%). Treatment contrasts between randomized vs nonrandomized patients were insignificant.ConclusionIn this post hoc analysis of data from a real-life 12-week study, OXN treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of opioid-induced constipation, superior tolerability, and significantly better analgesic efficacy compared with OXY and MOR.

Project description:ObjectivesBecause of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice.MethodsThis was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events.ResultsSignificantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias.ConclusionsCelecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Project description:The aim of this study is to use the life cycle assessment method to measure the environmental performance of the sludge incineration process in a wastewater treatment plant and to propose an alternative that can reduce the environmental impact. To show the damages caused by the treatment processes, the study aimed to use an endpoint approach in evaluating impacts on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources due to the processes. A case study was taken at Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant in Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S. The plant-specific data along with literature data from technical publications were used to build an inventory, and then analyzed the environmental burdens from sludge handling unit in the year 2011. The impact assessment method chosen was ReCipe 2008. The existing scenario (dewatering-multiple hearth incineration-ash to landfill) was evaluated and three alternative scenarios (fluid bed incineration and anaerobic digestion with and without land application) with energy recovery from heat or biogas were proposed and analyzed to find the one with the least environmental impact. The existing scenario shows that the most significant impacts are related to depletion in resources and damage to human health. These impacts mainly came from the operation phase (electricity and fuel consumption and emissions related to combustion). Alternatives showed better performance than the existing scenario. Using ReCipe endpoint methodology, and among the three alternatives tested, the anaerobic digestion had the best overall environmental performance. It is recommended to convert to fluid bed incineration if the concerns were more about human health or to anaerobic digestion if the concerns were more about depletion in resources. The endpoint approach may simplify the outcomes of this study as follows: if the plant is converted to fluid bed incineration, it could prevent an average of 43.2 DALYs in human life, save 0.059 species in the area from extinction, and make a 62% reduction in the plant's current expenses needed by future generations to extract resources per year. At the same time it may prevent 36.1 DALYs in humans, save 0.157 species, and make a 101% reduction in current expenses on resources per year, if converting to anaerobic digestion.

Dataset Information

Methodology of a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint streamlined safety study of celecoxib versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of the standard care versus celecoxib outcome trial (SCOT).

Publications

Methodology of a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint streamlined safety study of celecoxib versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of the standard care versus celecoxib outcome trial (SCOT).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets