Treatment of patients with osteoarthritis with rofecoxib compared with nabumetone

被引:15
|
作者
Weaver, AL
Messner, RP
Storms, WW
Polis, AB
Najarian, DK
Petruschke, RA
Geba, GP
Tershakovec, AM
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska, Med Ctr, Omaha, NE USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Asthma & Allergy Associates PC, Colorado Springs, CO USA
[4] Merck & Co Inc, West Point, PA USA
关键词
rofecoxib; nabumetone; osteoarthritis; PGART; onset;
D O I
10.1097/01.rhu.0000200384.79405.33
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Rofecoxib and nabumetone were developed to provide gastrointestinal benefits over traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, there is limited comparative information relating to these 2 drugs. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare rofecoxib and nabumetone, at their lower, recommended doses, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Nine hundred seventy-eight patients with knee OA and a positive history of NSAID response were randomized to 12.5 mg rofecoxib per day IN 390), nabumetone 500 mg twice a day (N = 392), or placebo (N 196) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was percent of patients with a "good" or "excellent" Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) at week 6 PGART was also evaluated over days 1 to 6. Additional end points included investigator assessment of response, pain walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, joint tenderness, discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy, and quality of life. Adverse experiences (AEs) were collected. Results: Significantly more rofecoxib (50.4%) than nabumetone (43.3%, P = 0.043) or placebo (29.5%, P < 0.001) patients had a good or excellent PGART at week 6. Median time to a good or excellent PGART was significantly shorter with rofecoxib (52 hours) than nabumetone (100 hours, P = 0.001) or placebo (> 124 hours, P < 0.001). Results for rofecoxib and nabUnietone were similar in all additional end points except pain in walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, in both of which the rofecoxib treatment group demonstrated better results. There were significantly (P < 0.050) more overall and serious AEs and discontinuations resulting, from AEs with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Five rofecoxib and one nabumetone patients had confirmed thrombotic cardiovascular events (P = 0.123). Information on thrombotic cardiovascular events from this study was included in a published, prespecified pooled analysis and is included here for completeness. Conclusions: At their recommended starting doses for OA, both agents were more effective than placebo. Rofecoxib at a dosage of 12.5 mg demonstrated significantly better efficacy in PGART than 1000 mg nabumetone in these patients known to be NSAID responders. Significantly more AEs occurred with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Considering these data and other recent safety information regarding cyclooxygenase-2 selective and nonselective NSAIDS, physicians must make risk/benefit assessments for each individual patient when considering the use of these agents, as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
引用
收藏
页码:17 / 25
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Experience of rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis previously treated with traditional non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs in Spain:: results of phase 2 of the VICOXX study
    Arboleya, LR
    de la Figuera, E
    García, MS
    Aragón, B
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2003, 19 (04) : 288 - 297
  • [32] A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the safety profile, tolerability, and efficacy of rofecoxib in advanced elderly patients with osteoarthritis
    K. E. Truitt
    R. S. Sperling
    W. H. Ettinger
    M. Greenwald
    L. DeTora
    Q. Zeng
    J. Bolognese
    E. Ehrich
    Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 2001, 13 : 112 - 121
  • [33] Hypertension among osteoarthritis patients treated with rofecoxib, celecoxib, or acetaminophen: An analysis of the data from the pooled VACT studies
    Geba, GP
    Polis, AB
    Petruschke, RA
    Keane, WF
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2003, 16 (05) : 39A - 39A
  • [34] Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in two similarly designed osteoarthritis studies
    Birbara, C
    Ruoff, G
    Sheldon, E
    Valenzuela, C
    Rodgers, A
    Petruschke, RA
    Chang, DJ
    Tershakovec, AM
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2006, 22 (01) : 199 - 210
  • [35] A 4-week randomized study of acetaminophen extended-release vs rofecoxib in knee osteoarthritis
    Schnitzer, T. J.
    Tesser, J. R. P.
    Cooper, K. M.
    Altman, R. D.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2009, 17 (01) : 1 - 7
  • [36] An update on the treatment of osteoarthritis in obese patients
    Deveza, Leticia
    Hunter, David
    EXPERT OPINION ON PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2016, 17 (06) : 753 - 755
  • [37] A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the safety profile, tolerability, and efficacy of rofecoxib in advanced elderly patients with osteoarthritis
    Truitt, KE
    Sperling, RS
    Ettinger, WH
    Greenwald, M
    DeTora, L
    Zeng, Q
    Bolognese, J
    Ehrich, E
    AGING-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 2001, 13 (02) : 112 - 121
  • [38] Comparative Clinical Trial of S-Adenosylmethionine Versus Nabumetone for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: An 8-Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Phase IV Study in Korean Patients
    Kim, Jinhyun
    Lee, Eun Young
    Koh, Eun-Mi
    Cha, Hoon-Suk
    Yoo, Bin
    Lee, Chang Keun
    Lee, Yunjong
    Ryu, Heejung
    Lee, Ki Hoon
    Song, Yeong Wook
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2009, 31 (12) : 2860 - 2872
  • [39] Rofecoxib shows consistent efficacy in osteoarthritis clinical trials, regardless of specific patient demographic and disease factors
    Detora, LM
    Krupa, D
    Bolognese, J
    Sperling, RS
    Ehrich, EW
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2001, 28 (11) : 2494 - 2503
  • [40] Fragility Fractures in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis Compared with the General Population
    Yamamoto, Yuri
    Turkiewicz, Aleksandra
    Wingstrand, Hans
    Englund, Martin
    JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY, 2015, 42 (11) : 2055 - 2058