Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib compared with placebo and etodolac for acute postoperative pain: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) that is widely used. The efficacy and safety of celecoxib for treatment of acute postoperative pain were evaluated in Japanese patients. The objective was to assess whether celecoxib showed superiority over placebo treatment and non-inferiority versus etodolac (another selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) that has been widely used for the management of acute pain. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, controlled study was performed, in which 616 patients with postoperative pain received celecoxib, etodolac, or placebo. Their impressions of study drug efficacy (overall assessment) and pain intensity were evaluated. Based on each patient's overall assessment of pain, the efficacy rate was 63.7% in the placebo group, 76.2% in the celecoxib group, and 68.0% in the etodolac group, with these results demonstrating superiority of celecoxib to placebo and noninferiority versus etodolac. The efficacy rate was significantly higher in the celecoxib group than in the etodolac group. There were no adverse events specific to celecoxib, and the safety of celecoxib was similar to that of placebo. Celecoxib was superior to etodolac for controlling acute postoperative pain.

SUBMITTER: Ishiguro N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4361510 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib compared with placebo and etodolac for acute postoperative pain: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial.

Ishiguro Naoki N Hanaoka Akio A Okada Toshiyuki T Ito Masanori M

Nagoya journal of medical science 20150201 1-2

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) that is widely used. The efficacy and safety of celecoxib for treatment of acute postoperative pain were evaluated in Japanese patients. The objective was to assess whether celecoxib showed superiority over placebo treatment and non-inferiority versus etodolac (another selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor) that has been widely used for the management of acute pain. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, p ...[more]

PMID: 25797973

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In spite of advances in understanding and technology, postoperative pain remains poorly treated for a significant number of patients. In colorectal surgery, the need for developing novel analgesics is especially important. Patients after bowel surgery are assessed for rapid return of bowel function and opioids worsen ileus, nausea and constipation. We describe a prospective, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial testing the hypothesis that a novel analgesic drug, VVZ -149, is safe and effective in improving pain compared with providing opioid analgesia alone among adults undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Based on sample size calculations for primary outcome, we plan to enrol 120 participants. Adult patients without significant medical comorbidities or ongoing opioid use and who are undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery will be enrolled. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either VVZ-149 with intravenous (IV) hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or the control intervention (IV PCA alone) in the postoperative period. The primary outcome is the Sum of Pain Intensity Difference over 8?hours (SPID-8 postdose). Participants receive VVZ-149 for 8?hours postoperatively to the primary study end point, after which they continue to be assessed for up to 24?hours. We measure opioid consumption, record pain intensity and pain relief, and evaluate the number of rescue doses and requests for opioid. To assess safety, we record sedation, nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression, laboratory tests and ECG readings after study drug administration. We evaluate for possible confounders of analgesic response, such as anxiety, depression and catastrophising behaviours. The study will also collect blood sample data and evaluate for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval of the study protocol has been obtained from Institutional Review Boards at the participating institutions. Trial results will be disseminated through scientific conference presentations and by publication in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02489526; pre-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy.DesignA multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes.SettingsEight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals.Participants145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain.InterventionsParticipants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin.Main outcome measuresAverage leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit.ResultsThere were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments.ConclusionsAlthough epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923.

Project description:IntroductionRecently the DAVID study demonstrated the better analgesic efficacy of tramadol hydrochloride/dexketoprofen 75/25 mg (TRAM/DKP) over tramadol hydrochloride/paracetamol 75/650 mg (TRAM/paracetamol) in a model of moderate to severe acute pain following surgical removal of an impacted third molar. The aim of this subpopulation analysis was to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between baseline pain intensity (PI) level and the effectiveness in pain control of the TRAM/DKP combination in comparison with the TRAM/paracetamol combination. This will further improve and facilitate the accurate design of future acute pain studies for the use of the TRAM/DKP combination.MethodsPatients experiencing at least moderate pain, defined as a PI score ≥ 4 in an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) were stratified according to NRS-PI at baseline (NRS ≥ 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8) or aggregated in two groups: (i) moderate pain, NRS-PI ≥ 4 to ≤ 6; (ii) severe pain, NRS-PI > 6. Analgesic efficacy was assessed at pre-specified time points by using pain relief (PAR) on a 5-point verbal rating scale (VRS) and PI on an 11-point NRS. The primary endpoint was total PAR over 6 h post-dose (TOTPAR6); secondary endpoints included, among others, the time course of mean PAR and PI scores over 8 h, TOTPAR over 2, 4, and 8 h post-dose, and the sum of PI difference (SPID) over 2, 4, 6, and 8 h. Safety evaluation was based on the incidence, seriousness, intensity, and causal relationship of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsThe analgesic efficacy evaluated by TOTPAR6 (primary endpoint) remained steady across increasing baseline PI-NRS cutoff groups with TRAM/DKP, but not with TRAM/paracetamol. The study also demonstrated the superiority of TRAM/DKP combination over TRAM/paracetamol in terms of TOTPAR over 2, 4, and 8 h post-dose and SPID at 2, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose in both baseline PI groups (moderate or severe); similarly, the time course of PAR and PI indicated better efficacy with TRAM/DKP as soon as 30 min and up to 4-6 h. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was not increased in the severe baseline PI group.ConclusionOverall, the results of this subgroup analysis of the DAVID study confirmed the superiority of the analgesic efficacy of TRAM/DKP vs TRAM/paracetamol, irrespective of the baseline PI.

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.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib compared with placebo and etodolac for acute postoperative pain: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of celecoxib compared with placebo and etodolac for acute postoperative pain: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets