Dataset Information

Efficacy of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT: Objective To compare the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms. Method In this 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to 200?mg celecoxib once daily, 800?mg ibuprofen three times daily or placebo. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of celecoxib to ibuprofen in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (scored 0-100). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index, Pain Satisfaction Scale, and upper gastrointestinal tolerability. Results A total of 388 patients were treated (celecoxib n?=?153; ibuprofen n?=?156; placebo n?=?79). Mean difference (95% confidence interval) between celecoxib and ibuprofen in the Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain was 2.76 (-3.38, 8.90). As the lower bound was greater than -10, celecoxib was non-inferior to ibuprofen. The WOMAC total score was significantly improved with celecoxib and ibuprofen, versus placebo. Patients receiving celecoxib were significantly more satisfied (versus placebo) in 10 of 11 measures on the Pain Satisfaction Scale versus three measures with ibuprofen. Upper gastrointestinal events were less frequent with celecoxib (1.3%) than ibuprofen (5.1%) or placebo (2.5%). Conclusion Celecoxib was well tolerated and as effective as ibuprofen for symptoms associated with knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00630929.

SUBMITTER: Gordo AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5536610 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Gordo Ana C AC Walker Chris C Armada Beatriz B Zhou Duo D

The Journal of international medical research 20170112 1

Objective To compare the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms. Method In this 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to 200 mg celecoxib once daily, 800 mg ibuprofen three times daily or placebo. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of celecoxib to ibuprofen in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (scored 0-100). Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universit ...[more]

PMID: 28222627

Similar Datasets

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:BACKGROUND:Although uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) are often self-limiting, most patients will be prescribed antibiotic treatment. We assessed whether treatment with ibuprofen was non-inferior to pivmecillinam in achieving symptomatic resolution by day 4, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind non-inferiority trial. We recruited patients from 16 sites in a general practice setting in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Non-pregnant women aged 18-60 years presenting with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI were screened for eligibility from 11 April 2013 to 22 April 2016. Patients with informed consent were randomized (1:1 ratio) to treatment with either 600 mg ibuprofen or 200 mg pivmecillinam 3 times a day for 3 days. The patient, treating physician, and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who felt cured by day 4, as assessed from a patient diary. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients in need of secondary treatment with antibiotics and cases of pyelonephritis. A total of 383 women were randomly assigned to treatment with either ibuprofen (n = 194, 181 analyzed) or pivmecillinam (n = 189, 178 analyzed). By day 4, 38.7% of the patients in the ibuprofen group felt cured versus 73.6% in the pivmecillinam group. The adjusted risk difference with 90% confidence interval was 35% (27% to 43%) in favor of pivmecillinam, which crossed the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Secondary endpoints were generally in favor of pivmecillinam. After 4 weeks' follow-up, 53% of patients in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotic treatment. Seven cases of pyelonephritis occurred, all in the ibuprofen group, giving a number needed to harm of 26 (95% CI 13 to 103). Five of these patients were hospitalized and classified as having serious adverse events; 2 recovered as outpatients. A limitation of the study was the extensive list of exclusion criteria, eliminating almost half of the patients screened. We did not register symptoms in the screening process; hence, we do not know the symptom burden for those who declined to participate. This might make our results less generalizable. CONCLUSIONS:Ibuprofen was inferior to pivmecillinam for treating uncomplicated UTIs. More than half of the women in the ibuprofen group recovered without antibiotics. However, pyelonephritis occurred in 7 out of 181 women using ibuprofen. Until we can identify those women who will develop complications, we cannot recommend ibuprofen alone as initial treatment to women with uncomplicated UTIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01849926 EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR), EudraCT Number 2012-002776-14.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of bioavailable turmeric extract versus paracetamol in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsIn this randomized, non-inferiority, controlled clinical study, patients of knee OA were randomized to receive bioavailable turmeric extract (BCM-95®) 500?mg capsule two times daily or paracetamol 650?mg tablet three times daily for 6?weeks. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. The secondary outcome measures were WOMAC total, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC physical function scores. Responder analysis of individual patients at different levels (??20%, ??50%, and???70%) for WOMAC score was calculated. TNF alpha and CRP levels were evaluated and adverse events (AE) were also recorded.ResultsSeventy-one and seventy-three knee OA patients, respectively in bioavailable turmeric extract and paracetamol groups, completed the study. Non-inferiority (equivalence) test showed that WOMAC scores were equivalent in both the groups (p value <?0.05) in all the domains within the equivalence limit defined by effect size (Cohen's d) of 0.5 whereas CRP and TNF-? were better reduced with turmeric extract than paracetamol. After 6?weeks of treatment, WOMAC total score, pain, stiffness, and function scores got a significant improvement of 23.59, 32.09, 28.5, and 20.25% respectively with turmeric extract. In the turmeric extract group, 18% of patients got more than 50% improvement and 3% of patients got more than 70% improvement in WOMAC pain and function/stiffness score and none of the patients in the paracetamol group met the criteria. CRP and TNF-? got significantly reduced (37.21 and 74.81% respectively) in the turmeric extract group. Adverse events reported were mild and comparatively less in the turmeric extract group (5.48%) than in the paracetamol group (12.68%).ConclusionThe results of the study suggest that bioavailable turmeric extract is as effective as paracetamol in reducing pain and other symptoms of knee osteoarthritis and found to be safe and more effective in reducing CRP and TNF-?.Trial registrationClinical Trials Registry - India CTRI/2017/02/007962 . Registered on 27 February 2017.

Project description:BackgroundPelubiprofen is a prodrug of 2-arylpropionic acid with relatively selective effects on cyclooxygenase-2 activity. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of pelubiprofen with those of celecoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsThis was a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase III, non-inferiority clinical trial. The primary end point was non-inferiority of pain decrease from baseline to week-6 as determined using a 100 mm pain visual analog scale (VAS). Pelubiprofen was considered non-inferior to celecoxib if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for treatment difference [(pain reduction in pelubiprofen group) - (pain reduction in celecoxib group)] was more than -10 mm. The secondary end points were as follows: non-inferiority of (1) reduction of Korean health assessment questionnaire (KHAQ) score; (2) decreased duration of morning stiffness; and (3) decrease in the frequency and total dose of rescue drugs after 6 weeks of treatment.ResultsSeventy-seven patients in the pelubiprofen group and 68 patients in the celecoxib group started the study medication. Pelubiprofen was non-inferior to celecoxib with regard to reduction in VAS pain severity (difference, mean ± SD 5.0 ± 20.1; 97.5% CI, -2.3 to ∞). Pelubiprofen was also non-inferior to celecoxib in terms of the secondary end points, such as, decrease in KHAQ score (0.0 ± 0.5, 97.5% CI -0.2 to ∞), decrease in duration of morning stiffness (median 0.0 minute in both groups), and decrease in the frequency (0.7 ± 3.5, 97.5% CI -0.6 to ∞) and total amount (0.7 ± 3.6, 97.5% CI -0.6 to ∞) of rescue medication uses during the 6 week study period. Safety analysis revealed 31.2% patients in the pelubiprofen group and 20.6% patients in the celecoxib group experienced an adverse drug reaction (ADR). The frequency of gastrointestinal ADRs was 20.8 % and 8.8%, respectively.ConclusionsPelubiprofen was found to be as effective as celecoxib at pain reduction and for relieving stiffness in RA patients. However, more patients in the pelubiprofen group experienced ADR and the frequency of gastrointestinal ADRs was higher in the pelubiprofen group. ClinialTrials.gov identifier: NCT01781702.

Project description:IntroductionIntra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is often used as therapy for knee osteoarthritis because it is less expensive and less aggressive than total knee replacement. Therefore, it is important to document whether HA is safe and efficacious. We tested whether single and multiple injection viscosupplementation with HA is associated with clinically meaningful pain relief in a new randomized clinical trial (RCT). Our objective was to compare safety and efficacy of intra-articular HA in two formulations: one 3.0 ml injection of Durolane versus five 2.5 ml injections of Artz for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis pain.MethodsPatients (N=349) from the People's Republic of China were randomized to treatment (Durolane=175, Artz=174). The Durolane group received a 3.0 ml injection at week 0 (baseline), with sham skin punctures at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Artz group received one 2.5 ml injection at each of the same time points. The primary assessment tool was the Likert-type Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) pain scale at weeks 0, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 26. Secondary assessments were WOMAC physical function, knee stiffness, and global self-assessment, at identical time points. Statistically-controlled analyses were non-inferiority of Durolane over 18, then over 26 weeks, with a priori non-inferiority defined as 8% of the relevant scale. Acetaminophen was permitted as rescue analgesia and all adverse events (AEs) were recorded.ResultsOverall study retention was excellent; 332 patients (95.1%) completed 18 weeks and 319 (91.4%) completed 26 weeks, with no significant retention difference between treatment arms. All variables met non-inferiority criteria over 18 and 26 weeks. Efficacy response in both arms was >90%. Treatment-related AEs were 9.8% (17/174) for Artz and 13.1% (23/175) for Durolane.ConclusionsA single injection of Durolane is non-inferior to 5 injections of Artz over 18 and 26 weeks for pain, physical function, global self-assessment, and knee stiffness. Both treatments were efficacious, safe, and well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295580 . Registered 11 February 2011.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cell therapies are being investigated as potential disease modifying treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA). Progenza (PRG) comprises in vitro expanded mesenchymal stem cells derived from human donor adipose tissue combined with cell culture supernatant. The primary objective of this first-in-human study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of PRG. METHODS:We conducted a single centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study. Twenty patients aged 40-65 years with symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3 knee OA were treated in two cohorts and randomized 4:1 to PRG or placebo. Cohort 1: 3.9 million cells (PRG 3.9M, n = 8) or placebo (n = 2) and cohort 2: 6.7 million cells (PRG 6.7M, n = 8) or placebo (n = 2). Each patient received a single intra-articular injection and was followed-up for 12 months. RESULTS:The study population comprised 20 patients (placebo, n = 4; PRG 3.9M, n = 8; PRG 6.7M, n = 8). All patients reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The majority of events [143/169 (84.6%)] were mild with 34 (20.1%) being considered by the investigator to be treatment related. There were no serious AEs or withdrawals due to AEs during the study. There was a statistically significant within group improvement in VAS pain scores from baseline at all timepoints for the PRG combined group, with highly significant improvements seen at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 (p ? 0.005) while VAS pain scores in the placebo group showed marginal improvement. A statistically significant improvement was also seen in WOMAC pain subscale scores from baseline at all timepoints for the PRG combined group while a marginal improvement in the placebo group was not statistically significant. Between screening and month 12, there was no decrease in average lateral tibial cartilage volume in the PRG 3.9M group while the placebo group showed a statistically significant cartilage loss. This difference between the placebo and PRG 3.9M group was statistically significant (LSM difference 106.47 mm3, 95% CI 13.56 mm3, 199.37 mm3, p = 0.028). CONCLUSION:When administered as a single intra-articular injection to patients with symptomatic knee OA, PRG was safe and well tolerated. Furthermore, measurable improvements in symptoms and knee structure outcomes warrant further studies on PRG's potential for disease modification in OA. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12615000439549. Date registered: 7th May 2015, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368355.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Publications

Efficacy of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets