Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study: A randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study. Celecoxib versus diclofenac in long-term management of rheumatoid arthritis: randomised double-blind comparison. A randomised, double-blind, clinical trial comparing the efficacy of nimesulide, celecoxib and rofecoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee. Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Assessment of comparative pain relief and tolerability of SKI306X compared with celecoxib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III, noninferiority clinical trial. Gastrointestinal tolerability and effectiveness of rofecoxib versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. COX-2 specific inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study. Celecoxib, a specific COX-2 inhibitor, has no significant effect on methotrexate pharmacokinetics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized trial.
Conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a spectrum of toxic effects, notably gastrointestinal (GI) effects, because of inhibition of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1. Whether COX-2-specific inhibitors are associated with fewer clinical GI toxic effects is unknown.
                To determine whether celecoxib, a COX-2-specific inhibitor, is associated with a lower incidence of significant upper GI toxic effects and other adverse effects compared with conventional NSAIDs.
                The Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS), a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted from September 1998 to March 2000.
                Three hundred eighty-six clinical sites in the United States and Canada.
                A total of 8059 patients (>/=18 years old) with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were enrolled in the study, and 7968 received at least 1 dose of study drug. A total of 4573 patients (57%) received treatment for 6 months.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, 400 mg twice per day (2 and 4 times the maximum RA and OA dosages, respectively; n = 3987); ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times per day (n = 1985); or diclofenac, 75 mg twice per day (n = 1996). Aspirin use for cardiovascular prophylaxis (</=325 mg/d) was permitted.
                Incidence of prospectively defined symptomatic upper GI ulcers and ulcer complications (bleeding, perforation, and obstruction) and other adverse effects during the 6-month treatment period.
                For all patients, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.76% vs 1.45% (P =.09) and 2. 08% vs 3.54% (P =.02), respectively. For patients not taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 0.44% vs 1.27% (P =.04) and 1.40% vs 2.91% (P =.02). For patients taking aspirin, the annualized incidence rates of upper GI ulcer complications alone and combined with symptomatic ulcers for celecoxib vs NSAIDs were 2.01% vs 2.12% (P =.92) and 4.70% vs 6.00% (P =.49). Fewer celecoxib-treated patients than NSAID-treated patients experienced chronic GI blood loss, GI intolerance, hepatotoxicity, or renal toxicity. No difference was noted in the incidence of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and NSAIDs, irrespective of aspirin use.
                In this study, celecoxib, at dosages greater than those indicated clinically, was associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic ulcers and ulcer complications combined, as well as other clinically important toxic effects, compared with NSAIDs at standard dosages. The decrease in upper GI toxicity was strongest among patients not taking aspirin concomitantly. JAMA. 2000;284:1247-1255 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit cyclo-oxygenase (COX), which leads to suppression of COX-1-mediated production of gastrointestinal-protective prostaglandins. Gastrointestinal injury is a common outcome. We compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of long-term therapy with celecoxib, a COX-1 sparing inhibitor of COX-2, with diclofenac, a non-specific COX inhibitor.
                655 patients with adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis of at least 6 months' duration were randomly assigned oral celecoxib 200 mg twice daily or diclofenac SR 75 mg twice daily for 24 weeks. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity and tolerability were assessed at baseline, every 4 weeks, and at week 24. We assessed gastrointestinal safety by upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy within 7 days of the last treatment dose at centres where the procedure was available. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.
                430 patients underwent endoscopy (celecoxib n=212, diclofenac n=218). The two drugs were similar in management of rheumatoid arthritis pain and inflammation. Gastroduodenal ulcers were detected endoscopically in 33 (15%) patients treated with diclofenac and in eight (4%) in the celecoxib group (p<0.001). The rate of withdrawal for any gastrointestinal-related adverse event, most commonly abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and dyspepsia, was nearly three times higher in the diclofenac-treated group than in the celecoxib group (16 vs 6%; p<0.001).
                Celecoxib showed sustained anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity similar to diclofenac, with a lower frequency of upper gastrointestinal ulceration or gastrointestinal adverse events, and tolerability was better. Joint pain is the main complaint in patients affected by osteoarthritis (OA), and NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain associated with OA. Over the past few years, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors have been proved to have certain advantages over non-selective NSAIDs and have been increasingly used for pain management in patients with OA.
                The main objective of this randomised, double-blind, within-patient study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of three COX-2 inhibitors in 30 patients affected by symptomatic OA of the knee. We evaluated the effects of oral nimesulide (100mg), celecoxib (200mg) and rofecoxib (25mg). Each drug was administered for 7 days.
                Analgesic efficacy was determined using the patient's assessment of pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and by total pain relief over 3 hours (TOPAR3) on the first and last days of treatment. In addition, the overall analgesic efficacy and tolerability were determined by a global assessment by the patient at the end of each week of treatment, using 5-point categorical scales. At the end of the study, each patient was asked about which of the three forms of treatment they would choose as a continuation of the pain therapy.
                Taking all the results into consideration, nimesulide proved to be significantly more effective in providing symptomatic relief than did celecoxib and rofecoxib. Furthermore, nimesulide provided more rapid relief of pain associated with walking than did the other two drugs tested. Patients expressed similar preference for nimesulide and rofecoxib, but a lesser preference for celecoxib treatment. No patient withdrew from the study because of adverse events and the three different forms of treatment were generally safe and well tolerated.
                The present data confirm our previous observations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, further suggesting that nimesulide represents an effective agent for the treatment of joint pain, with particular reference to the rapid onset of its analgesic effect. To investigate whether concurrent administration of misoprostol reduces the occurrence of serious upper gastrointestinal complications, such as perforation, gastric outlet obstruction, or bleeding, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
                6-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
                664 clinical practices of family medicine, internal medicine, or rheumatology in the United States and Canada.
                8843 men and women (mean age, 68 years) receiving continuous therapy with any of 10 specified NSAIDs for control of symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were enrolled between July 1991 and August 1993.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 micrograms of misoprostol or placebo four times a day.
                Development of serious upper gastrointestinal complications detected by clinical symptoms or findings (not by scheduled endoscopy).
                Serious upper gastrointestinal complications were reduced by 40% (odds ratio, 0.598 [95% CI, 0.364 to 0.982; P = 0.049]) among patients receiving misoprostol (25 of 4404 patients) compared with those receiving placebo (42 of 4439 patients). During the first month, more patients receiving misoprostol (20%) than placebo (15%) withdrew from the study, primarily because of diarrhea and related problems (P < 0.001). Risk factors for serious upper gastrointestinal complications were increasing age, history of peptic ulcer or bleeding, and cardiovascular disease. Patients with all four risk factors would have a 9% risk for a major complication in 6 months.
                In older patients with rheumatoid arthritis, misoprostol reduced serious NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal complications by 40% compared with placebo. SKI306X, which consists of biologically active ingredients from Clematis mandsburica, Tricbosantbes kirilowii, and Prunella vulgaris, was developed and tested in preclinical trials in Korea. Those studies found that SKI306X was associated with an anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect, and that it can delay the destruction of cartilage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                The aim of this study was to compare the pain relief and tolerability of SKI306X and celecoxib in patients with RA.
                This study was a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III, noninferiority clinical trial. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 80 years, had a history of RA with a disease duration of > or =3 months, and were functional American College of Rheumatology (ACR) class I, II, or III before entry. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients were randomized to SKI306X 200 mg TID or celecoxib 200 mg BID for 6 weeks. The primary end point was a change in patient assessment of pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary end points were a 20% improvement in response rate as defined by the ACR (ACR20) and the frequency of rescue medication use. Results after 3 and 6 weeks of treatment were compared with baseline and between treatment groups, and all patients were assessed for adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs. AEs were identified based on spontaneous reports by patients during interviews conducted by the investigators and the study coordinator.
                Two hundred twenty-two Korean patients from 7 medical centers were assessed and 183 were enrolled and randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Ninety-one patients (10 male, 81 female; mean [SD] age, 52.13 [12.64] years; mean [SD] duration of RA, 9.08 [10.23] years; no. [%] of ACR class I, II, and III, 13 [14.29], 44 [48.35] and 34 [37.36] patients, respectively) received SKI306X 200 mg TID and 92 patients (10 male, 82 female; mean [SD] age, 51.78 [10.94] years; mean [SD] duration of RA, 8.78 [7.78] years; no. [%] of ACR class I, II, and III, 14 [15.22], 44 [47.83], and 34 [36.96] patients, respectively) received celecoxib 200 mg BID. An analysis of the change in reported pain intensity as determined by VAS (mm) score between baseline and week 3 (mean [SD], 13.64 [16.62] vs 14.45 [15.89]), and between baseline and week 6 (18.4 [20.8] vs 17.9 [19.1], respectively) suggested that SKI306X was not inferior to celecoxib. The number of patients who achieved ACR20 response rate was not significantly different between the SKI306X group and the celecoxib group at week 3 (16/87 [18.4%] vs 24/87 [27.6%], respectively) and at week 6 (29/87 [33.3%] vs 29/87 [33.3%]). The frequency of rescue medication use was not significantly different between the SKI306X group and celecoxib group at week 3 (54/87 [62.1%] vs 47/87 [54.0%], respectively) or week 6 (57/87 [65.5%] vs 49/87 [56.3%]). Drug-related AEs were reported by 27 (29.7%) patients in the SKI306X group and 22 (23.9%) patients in the celecoxib group. The most frequent drug-related AEs were epigastric pain (9/91 [9.9%]) in the SKI306X group and glutamyltranferase elevation (4/92 [4.3%]) in the celecoxib group. No significant between-group differences were observed in the prevalence of drug-related clinical- or laboratory-determined AEs.
                The results of this study suggest that SKI306X was generally well tolerated and not inferior to celecoxib in regard to pain relief in these Korean patients with RA. Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity mediated by dual cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 inhibition of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can cause serious alterations of mucosal integrity or, more commonly, intolerable GI symptoms that may necessitate discontinuation of therapy. Unlike NSAIDs, rofecoxib targets only the COX-2 isoform.
                To assess the tolerability of rofecoxib compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis.
                Randomized, controlled trial.
                600 office and clinical research sites.
                5557 patients (mean age, 63 years) with a baseline diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, hand, or spine.
                Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, or naproxen, 500 mg twice daily. Use of routine medications, including aspirin, was permitted.
                Discontinuation due to GI adverse events (primary end point) and use of concomitant medication to treat GI symptoms (secondary end point). Efficacy was determined by patient-reported global assessment of disease status and the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, as well as discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12.
                Rates of cumulative discontinuation due to GI adverse events were statistically significantly lower in the rofecoxib group than in the naproxen group (5.9% vs. 8.1%; relative risk, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92]; P = 0.005), as were rates of cumulative use of medication to treat GI symptoms (9.1% vs. 11.2%; relative risk, 0.79 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]; P = 0.014]). Subgroup analysis of patients who used low-dose aspirin (13%) and those who previously discontinued using arthritis medication because of GI symptoms (15%) demonstrated a relative risk similar to the overall sample for discontinuation due to GI adverse events (relative risk, 0.56 [CI, 0.31 to 1.01] and 0.53 [CI, 0.34 to 0.84], respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between treatments for efficacy in treating osteoarthritis or for occurrence of other adverse events.
                In patients with osteoarthritis treated for 12 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, was as effective as naproxen, 500 mg twice daily, but had statistically significantly superior GI tolerability and led to less use of concomitant GI medications. Benefits of rofecoxib in subgroup analyses were consistent with findings in the overall sample. COX-2 specific inhibitors have demonstrated significant safety advantages and comparable efficacy in osteoarthritis (OA) compared with conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but no direct comparative trials between COX-2 specific inhibitors have been published. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter study, 182 patients (> or =40 years old) with OA of the knee were randomly assigned to treatment with celecoxib 200 mg q.d. (n = 63), rofecoxib 25 mg q.d. (n = 59), or placebo (n = 60) for 6 weeks. Arthritis assessments were performed at baseline and Weeks 3 and 6, or at early termination. At Week 6, celecoxib and rofecoxib treatment resulted in similar mean changes from baseline (p > 0.55) in arthritis pain visual analogue scale, patient's global assessment, and total score for WOMAC; all changes were superior to placebo (p < 0.05). In the patient's global assessment of arthritis pain at Week 6, 79% of celecoxib-treated and 78% of rofecoxib-treated patients improved by > or =1 grade, compared with 50% of placebo patients (celecoxib, p = 0.025; rofecoxib, p = 0.020). Adverse event incidences were similar among the active comparators; however, celecoxib-treated patients had significantly fewer adverse gastrointestinal symptoms compared with rofecoxib-treated patients, which suggests that celecoxib may have a better gastrointestinal tolerability profile than rofecoxib at these doses. Adverse events that prompted withdrawal occurred in fewer than 7% of patients, and the overall incidences were similar between the active agents. Once-daily doses of celecoxib 200 mg and rofecoxib 25 mg offer comparable efficacy and are an effective alternative to conventional NSAIDs in the management of OA. To determine the effects of celecoxib, a specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) on the renal clearance and plasma pharmacokinetic profile of stable methotrexate (MTX) doses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
                Fourteen adult female patients with RA taking a stable weekly dose of MTX (5 to 15 mg/wk) for a minimum of 3 months were randomized to receive concomitantly either celecoxib (200 mg BID) or placebo for a period of 7 days in a single blind, 2 period crossover study of MTX pharmacokinetics and renal clearance.
                The plasma pharmacokinetic profile of MTX did not change significantly when celecoxib or a placebo was coadministered. The mean renal clearance of MTX alone, 7.98+/-2.18 l/h, was virtually unchanged by coadministration of celecoxib (7.94+/-1.61 l/h) or placebo (7.97+/-1.19 l/h).
                Celecoxib has no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics or renal clearance of MTX in patients with RA, although these results should be confirmed in prospective studies of elderly and renally impaired patients. Osteoarthritis (OA) is often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, or specific inhibitors of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2).
                To assess the relative therapeutic efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in adults with OA.
                Randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial, conducted from June 1999 to February 2000, in 29 clinical centers in the United States.
                Three hundred eighty-two patients aged at least 40 years who had OA of the knee that was previously treated with NSAIDs or acetaminophen.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d (n = 96); rofecoxib, 25 mg/d (n = 95); celecoxib, 200 mg/d (n = 97); or acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d (n = 94) for 6 weeks.
                Assessments over days 1 to 6 and over 6 weeks included pain on walking, night pain, pain at rest, and morning stiffness as measured on a Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]) and global response to therapy compared among 4 treatment groups.
                79% of patients completed the study. More patients treated with acetaminophen discontinued early due to lack of efficacy than patients treated with COX-2 inhibitors (31% vs 18%-19%). Efficacy assessed in the first 6 days of therapy showed greatest response to rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, followed by rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d, celecoxib, and acetaminophen, respectively, in terms of relief of pain on walking (-32.2, - 29.0, - 26.4, and -20.6 mm change on the VAS; P</=.04 for all others vs acetaminophen; P =.05 for 25-mg rofecoxib vs celecoxib), rest pain (-21.8, - 18.6, - 15.5, and - 12.5 mm; P</=.02 for either dose of rofecoxib vs acetaminophen and P =.02 for rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, vs celecoxib), night pain (-25.2, - 22.0, - 18.7, and - 18.8 mm; P =.04 for rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, vs both acetaminophen and celecoxib), and morning stiffness (-30.4, - 28.4, - 25.7, and - 20.9 mm; P</=.02 for either dose of rofecoxib vs acetaminophen). Over 6 weeks, rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, provided greatest response for night pain (P<.002 vs celecoxib and P =.006 vs acetaminophen and P =.02 vs rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d), composite pain subscale (P</=.03 vs all other treatments), stiffness subscale (P</=.04 vs celecoxib and acetaminophen), and physical function subscale (P =.001 vs acetaminophen). Global responses over 6 weeks showed a similar pattern (good or excellent response at week 6: 60%, 56%, 46%, and 39%, respectively; P</=.03 for rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, vs celecoxib and acetaminophen; P =.02 for rofecoxib, 12.5 mg/d, vs acetaminophen). All treatments were generally safe and well tolerated.
                Rofecoxib, 25 mg/d, provided efficacy advantages over acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d, celecoxib, 200 mg/d, and rofecoxib, 12.5 mg, for symptomatic knee OA.
For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.