Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on August 27, 2006
Rheumatology 2007 46(3):496-507; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel296
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/3/496    most recent
kel296v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bingham, C. O.
Right arrow Articles by Tershakovec, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bingham, C. O., III
Right arrow Articles by Tershakovec, A. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 30 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of osteoarthritis in two identically designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies

C. O. Bingham, III, A. I. Sebba1, B. R. Rubin2, G. E. Ruoff3, J. Kremer4, S. Bird5, S. S. Smugar5, B. J. Fitzgerald5, K. O’Brien5 and A. M. Tershakovec5

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1Arthritis Associates, Palm Harbor, FL, 2University of North Texas, Fort Worth, TX, 3Westside Family Medical Centre, Kalamazoo, MI, 4The Centre for Rheumatology, Albany, NY and 5Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA, USA.

Correspondence to: Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, 5200 Eastern Avenue, Mason F. Lord Building, Centre Tower, Room 404, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Email: Clifton.bingham{at}jhmi.edu


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Objective. To compare the efficacy of etoricoxib 30 mg with the generally maximum recommended dose of celecoxib, 200 mg, in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) in two identically designed studies.

Methods. Two multi-centre, 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies were conducted, enrolling patients who were prior non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or acetaminophen users. There were 599 patients in study 1 and 608 patients in study 2 randomized 4:4:1:1 to etoricoxib 30 mg qd, celecoxib 200 mg qd or one of two placebo groups for 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, placebo patients were evenly distributed to etoricoxib or celecoxib based on their initial enrollment randomization schedule. The primary hypothesis was that etoricoxib 30 mg would be at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg for the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks for Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Pain Subscale, WOMAC Physical Function Subscale and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Active treatments were also assessed over the full 26 weeks. Adverse experiences were collected for safety assessment.

Results. In both studies, etoricoxib was non-inferior to celecoxib for all three efficacy outcomes over 12 and 26 weeks; both were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for all three outcomes in each study over 12 weeks. The safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 30 mg qd and celecoxib 200 mg qd were similar over 12 and 26 weeks.

Conclusions. Etoricoxib 30 mg qd was at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg qd and had similar safety in the treatment of knee and hip OA; both were superior to placebo.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00092768 [ClinicalTrials.gov] ; NCT00092791

KEY WORDS: Celecoxib, COX-2 inhibitor, Efficacy, Etoricoxib, Osteoarthritis, WOMAC


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disorder, affecting approximately 21 million people in the US alone [1, 2]. Prevalence of the condition increases with age, with radiographic evidence in ~70% of people in the US over age 55 yrs and 80% of people over 75 yrs [2–4]. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the mainstay for the symptomatic treatment of OA, are effective analgesic and anti-inflammatory agents [5–7], but have a side effect profile with known risk. Toxicity, particularly in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, is a potential occurrence with NSAIDs resulting from cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-1 inhibition [8], with over 100 000 hospitalizations annually in the US due to NSAID gastropathy [9]. The typical OA patient is at higher risk for NSAID gastropathy because of potential inter-related factors including older age, the presence of multiple medical conditions requiring additional medical treatments, and the use of higher doses of NSAIDs for longer periods [10, 11]. In clinical studies, COX-2 inhibitors have similar efficacy as NSAIDs in the treatment of OA pain [12–15], but with improved GI safety profiles [16–22]. These agents thus provide important treatment options not only for patients with OA pain and typical risks in general, but also for those patients with prior GI haemorrhage, those taking anticoagulants, or with a known bleeding diathesis, who would be at additional risk of NSAID-related GI bleeding.

Etoricoxib is a selective COX-2 inhibitor available in 55 countries in Europe, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region, and is under development in the US. At its recommended dose of 60 mg once daily [23], etoricoxib demonstrated similar efficacy to diclofenac 50 mg three times daily (tid) and naproxen 500 mg twice daily (bid) in studies of patients with OA [24–26]. When compared with non-selective NSAIDs, there were significantly (P < 0.001) fewer perforations, ulcers and bleeds (PUBs) with etoricoxib 60 mg [20], and a lower rate of endoscopically identified ulceration and erosion with etoricoxib 120 mg (twice the recommended OA dose [21]). Studies have also shown etoricoxib at a dosage of 30 mg/day to be efficacious in OA compared with either ibuprofen 800 mg tid [27] or diclofenac 50 mg tid [25]. To our knowledge, etoricoxib has never been compared, in a clinical trial, with another selective COX-2 inhibitor in OA.

The primary purpose of the current two studies was to compare the efficacy of etoricoxib 30 mg qd and the generally recommended dose of celecoxib (200 mg qd) in the treatment of OA of the knee and hip over a 12-week period using the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Universities’ OA Index Pain and Physical Function Subscales, and the Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status (PGADS), as co-primary end points. These end points are widely used and accepted measures of response to treatment for OA and provide a comprehensive assessment of response to treatment. The two studies are presented together in order to directly compare the results of these identically designed trials.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Study patients
Patients were otherwise healthy males or non-pregnant females, ≥40 yrs of age, with a diagnosis of OA of the knee or hip >6 months, and were American Rheumatology Association (ARA) functional Class I, II or III. Prior to study enrollment, patients were required to be taking an NSAID at prescription strength for at least 30 days or acetaminophen 1200–4000 mg a day on a regular basis (at least 25 of the last 30 days) with a history of therapeutic benefit. Eligibility required patients to meet specific flare criteria upon medication washout, described subsequently. Exclusion criteria included concurrent medical or arthritic disease which could confound evaluation of efficacy (e.g. inflammatory arthritis, history of septic arthritis of the study joint, osteochondritis desiccans or osteonecrosis of the study joint, Wilson's disease, haemochromatosis, ochronosis or primary osteochondromatosis), candidates for imminent joint replacement, serum creatinine >2.0 mg/dl, congestive heart failure (CHF) or unstable angina, uncontrolled hypertension, stroke or transient ischaemic attack within 6 months, certain neoplastic diseases, and allergy to aspirin, ibuprofen, rofecoxib, celecoxib, valdecoxib, other NSAID, acetaminophen or sulpha drugs. Contraindicated prior medications within pre-specified times of initiating the study included: intravenous, intramuscular or oral corticosteroids; glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate; intra-articular steroids, intra-articular hyaluronans; topical, oral or systemic analgesics; warfarin, heparin and high-dose aspirin (defined as >325 mg, once daily), weight loss agents, appetite suppressants and chronic medications used for <1 month at a stable dose. Low-dose aspirin (325 mg or less, once daily) was allowed for cardio-protective benefit. Patients could continue with existing physical therapy, but were not permitted to initiate physical therapy during the study period.

All participants signed informed consent to participate in these studies. The protocols were approved by the institutional review board or ethical review board for each site.

Study design
Two 26-week, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, two-part studies were conducted [Protocols 076 (study 1) and 077 (study 2)] at 74 centres each. Eligible patients were randomized in a 4:4:1:1 allocation ratio to etoricoxib 30 mg qd, celecoxib 200 mg qd or one of two placebo groups for 12 weeks (part I) (Fig. 1). Patients who successfully completed part I were enrolled directly into part II, an active comparator 14-week follow-up. Patients on active treatment in part I remained on the same treatment in part II; patients receiving placebo in part I received either etoricoxib 30 mg or celecoxib 200 mg in part II, based on their initial randomization schedule at enrollment.


Figure 1
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 1. Study design.

 
At screening, NSAID users had to demonstrate an assessment of pain walking on a flat surface (WOMAC OA Index Version VA 3.0, Question 1) of <80 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Acetaminophen users had to demonstrate a minimum of 40 mm; a score of fair, poor or very poor on Investigator Global Assessment of Disease Status (IGADS); and a minimum of 40 mm on PGADS.

Following screening, prior NSAID users discontinued treatment to allow for washout and symptom flare; acetaminophen users remained on treatment. To qualify for enrollment, at the flare/baseline visit, NSAID users had to demonstrate a minimum score of 40 mm with an increase of 15 mm on patient-assessed pain walking on a flat surface, and IGADS worsening of at least one point on a 5-point Likert scale. Acetaminophen users had to demonstrate a minimum of 40 mm of patient-assessed pain walking on a flat surface, fair, poor or very poor on IGADS, and a minimum of 40 mm on PGADS.

Eligible patients were evaluated at the study centres following 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment (part I), and following 16 and 26 weeks of treatment (part II). Clinical efficacy and safety data were collected at each visit, including vital signs and a physical examination. Acetaminophen 325 mg tablets were available as rescue analgesia at a maximum daily dose of 2600 mg. Patients were requested to use as little acetaminophen as possible, and discontinued acetaminophen use at least 12 h before visits 2–8. A tablet count of study medication was performed at each visit. Patients who missed >20% of scheduled doses were considered non-compliant.

Patients unable to complete the 26-week study were scheduled within 48 h for a discontinuation visit at which the reason for discontinuation was noted.

Efficacy and safety end points
The co-primary efficacy end points were: WOMAC Pain Subscale, WOMAC Physical Function Subscale and PGADS. The Pain Subscale was the average of the first five questions of the WOMAC and measured by VAS from 0 (‘no pain’) to 100 mm (‘extreme pain’) for each question. The Physical Function Subscale was the average of questions 8 through 24 of the WOMAC and measured by VAS from 0 (‘no difficulty’) to 100 mm (‘extreme difficulty’) for each question. PGADS was measured by VAS from 0 (‘very well’) to 100 mm (‘very poor’). Analyses of these end points were based upon the time-weighted average (TWA) change from baseline over 12 weeks.

Safety was monitored by clinical and laboratory assessments at study visits and patient reported adverse experiences (AEs). Pre-defined AEs of interest included discontinuation due to any AE, discontinuation due to oedema, hypertension or GI event or CHF.

All potentially serious thrombotic cardiovascular (CV) AEs, deaths and serious upper GI AEs (PUBs) were adjudicated by separate, blinded expert Case Review Committees. Serious thrombotic CV AEs were confirmed and classified by vascular bed, specific event type and by the Anti-Platelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC) criteria [28].

Statistical methods
The primary efficacy analysis was a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) approach on TWA response. The equation for TWA is Formula , where x is the measurement value and w is the weight. The equation for weight is wi = (ti – ti–1)/tn, where ti is the current time point, t(i–1) is the previous time point, and tn is the final time point. All patients with a baseline value and at least one post-baseline observation were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Only observed data were included in each patient's TWA response; no data were carried forward or imputed for this computation. A secondary per-protocol analysis removing pre-specified protocol violators was also carried out.

Primary efficacy variables were assessed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors for study site, treatment group, primary OA joint and baseline score (flare/randomization visit) of the dependent variable. Consistency of treatment effect across different subgroups was assessed using an ANCOVA model including factors for subgroup and treatment by subgroup interaction. The interactions were tested for significance at the {alpha} = 0.05 level as an index to determine if further exploratory analyses were needed to examine the nature of the interaction.

With 200 patients each in the etoricoxib and celecoxib groups and 100 patients in the placebo group, each study provided an overall power of at least 87% to satisfy the primary hypothesis of non-inferiority between actives, and of actives demonstrating superiority over placebo. This assumes no difference between actives for the three co-primary end points, and active-placebo differences of –11.1, –10.2 and –11.5 mm for WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function and PGADS TWA change from baseline, respectively, with standard deviations of 20.5, 20.1 and 22.0, respectively. To satisfy the primary hypothesis, the following were required: (i) the upper bound of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for difference between active treatments (etoricoxib 30 mg–celecoxib 200 mg) was not >10 mm with respect to the TWA change from baseline over 12 weeks for the three primary end points; and (ii) etoricoxib 30 mg qd was superior (P ≤ 0.05) to placebo for the TWA change from baseline over 12 weeks for these end points.

Safety analyses included all randomized patients who took at least one dose of study medication. AEs occurring during treatment or within 14 days of discontinuing treatment were tabulated. A subset of clinical AEs was pre-specified for further analysis, with pairwise treatment differences analysed using Fisher's exact test. Summary statistics for observed values and changes from baseline were tabulated at each study week by treatment group for systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP), and the percentage of patients who exceeded pre-defined limits of change was provided for SBP (consecutive values >140 mmHg and increases from baseline >20 mmHg) and DBP (consecutive values >90 mmHg and increases from baseline >15 mmHg).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Patient disposition
Between March 2004 and February 2005, 599 patients were randomized in study 1 and 608 in study 2 (Fig. 2a and b), of which 468 (78.1%) patients in study 1 and 474 (78.0%) patients in study 2 completed the studies through 12 weeks (part I). The most common cause of discontinuation was lack of efficacy. Significantly more patients in the placebo group (P < 0.001) discontinued due to lack of efficacy than either active treatment group in both studies. The difference in withdrawals between etoricoxib and celecoxib was not significant in either study. A total of 417 (69.6%) patients in study 1 and 419 (68.9%) patients in study 2 completed the full 26-week treatment period (parts I and II).


Figure 2
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 2. (a) Study 1: patient disposition and (b) Study 2: patient disposition.

 
Baseline characteristics
The treatment groups in both studies were similar with respect to gender, age, race, prior medication use, pain severity and primary OA joint (Table 1). The distribution of pain scores based on medians and percentiles was also similar for all groups in both studies indicating that there were comparable proportions of subjects across pain strata (e.g. minimal, moderate, severe).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Demographics

 
Primary efficacy end points
Etoricoxib 30 mg and celecoxib 200 mg were similar to each other for all three end points in both studies. For each primary end point, the upper limit of the 95% CI on the mean difference (etoricoxib minus celecoxib; negative value favours etoricoxib) did not exceed 10 mm; therefore etoricoxib was at least as effective as celecoxib over 12 weeks (Figs 3–5GoGo, Table 2a and b). Both etoricoxib and celecoxib were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) over 12 weeks.


Figure 3
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 3. (a) Study 1: pain subscale change from flare visit (least squares means) measured on a 0–100 mm VAS. (b) Study 2: pain subscale change from flare visit (least squares means) measured on a 0–100 mm VAS. S, screening visit; R, randomization visit.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 4. (a) Study 1: physical function subscale change from flare visit (least squares means) measured on a 0–100 mm VAS. (b) Study 2: physical function subscale change from flare visit (least squares means) measured on a 0–100 mm VAS. S, screening visit; R, randomization visit.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 5. (a) Study 1: patient global assessment of disease status (least squares means) measured on a 0–100 mm VAS. (b) Study 2: patient global assessment of disease status (least squares means) measured on a 0–100 mm VAS. S, screening visit; R, randomization visit.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2a. Primary end points: analysis of TWA change from baseline (flare/randomization visit) averaged over weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (mITT Population), study 1

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2b. Primary end points: analysis of TWA change from baseline (flare/randomization visit) averaged over weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12 (mITT population), study 2

 
For the 26-week end points, the upper limit of the 95% CI on the difference did not exceed 10 mm, therefore etoricoxib was at least as effective as celecoxib over 26 weeks as well (Figs 2–4GoGo).

The results of a pooled subgroup analysis including both studies yielded similar treatment responses by study joint (i.e. knee vs hip) for the three co-primary end points and were consistent with the overall results; there was no significant interaction (P-range 0.765–0.870) between the primary joint affected and treatment for any of the co-primary efficacy outcomes at 12 and 26 weeks (data not shown).

Secondary efficacy end points
In study 1, the mean change from baseline (95% CI) in IGADS was –1.41 (–1.53, –1.28), –1.22 (–1.34, –1.10) and –0.71 (–0.87, –0.55) for etoricoxib, celecoxib and placebo, respectively; values in study 2 were –1.29 (–1.40, –1.17), –1.35 (–1.46, –1.24) and –0.63 (–0.79, –0.46), respectively. In both studies, active treatments were significantly better than placebo. Etoricoxib was significantly greater than celecoxib in study 1 [pairwise difference (95% CI) –0.19 (–0.34, –0.03), but not in study 2 [0.06 (–0.08, 0.21)].

Safety
Part I: 12 weeks
Overall AEs
AE rates were generally similar between the active treatment groups (Table 3). The most commonly reported AEs in both studies were upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, headache, peripheral oedema and diarrhoea. Discontinuations due to drug-related AEs were similar for all treatment groups in both studies.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Summary of clinical adverse experiences over 12 weeks

 
Pre-specified AEs
In study 1, there were no significant differences between etoricoxib, celecoxib and placebo for any of the pre-specified AEs (Table 3). In study 2, both etoricoxib (P = 0.017) and celecoxib (P = 0.012) had significantly fewer AEs leading to discontinuation than placebo. Additionally, celecoxib had significantly fewer discontinuations due to GI AEs than placebo (P = 0.037). In both studies, there were no significant differences between the three treatment groups with respect to discontinuations due to oedema- or hypertension-related AEs, nor were any significant differences observed in the rates of CHF, pulmonary oedema or cardiac failure.

Part II: 26 weeks
The rates of AEs and pre-specified AEs were not significantly different between etoricoxib and celecoxib over the entire 26-week duration in either study (data not shown). Discontinuations due to drug-related AEs were similar for etoricoxib and celecoxib in both studies.

Blood pressure change
Mean changes in BP from baseline (randomization) and the percentage of patients exceeding pre-defined BP limits are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Results were generally similar between the treatment groups for either category.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 4. Mean change in blood pressure (mmHg)

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 5. Number of patients exceeding pre-defined limits of change in blood pressure (n/m)a

 
Adjudicated PUBs and thrombotic cardiovascular AEs
No patients in study 1 experienced a PUB. In study 2, one etoricoxib patient experienced an investigator-reported duodenal ulcer, which was confirmed by the adjudication committee, and one celecoxib patient experienced a duodenal and a gastric ulcer, which were confirmed by the adjudication committee.

In study 1, there was one investigator-reported thrombotic CV AE (cerebrovascular accident) in a celecoxib patient, which was confirmed by the adjudication committee and met APTC criteria as a thrombotic CV AE. In study 2, one patient in each treatment group had an investigator-reported thrombotic CV AE. Coronary artery disease in a patient receiving placebo did not meet adjudication committee or APTC criteria for confirmation. A transient ischaemic attack in a patient receiving etoricoxib was reclassified by the adjudication committee as stroke/transient ischaemic attack, which was confirmed by the adjudication committee and fulfilled APTC criteria. A celecoxib patient had an investigator-reported myocardial infarction that was confirmed as a non-thromboembolic event by the adjudication committee and APTC criteria.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Several clinical trials have demonstrated that OA pain can be effectively treated in many patients with lower doses of COX-2 inhibitors. A plateau effect observed with increasing doses suggests that prostaglandin-mediated pain is saturable [12, 24, 27, 29–33]. The current studies were designed to determine whether etoricoxib 30 mg daily was as effective as the recommended dose of celecoxib 200 mg daily in patients with OA of the knee or hip. For each co-primary end point, etoricoxib met the definition for non-inferiority compared with the maximum recommended dose of celecoxib over 12 weeks and 26 weeks. Both active treatments were superior to placebo during the 12-week placebo-controlled portion of the study. In both studies, a placebo benefit was observed, but in neither did pain decrease to the pre-flare level of control.

Our studies differ from some OA trials by the use of TWA rather than a landmark assessment to measure efficacy. In a landmark assessment, the outcome is measured only by the final time point value. The TWA takes into account not only the value at a given time point, but also the duration of those values over the entire study period. As the name suggests, it represents the average treatment effect through the trial duration, and is closely related to the area under the curve (AUC) measurement. This difference is of crucial importance in evaluating the response to treatment in a condition such as OA. Patients with OA experience periods of exacerbation during which onset of relief is of great importance. A landmark assessment does not account for differences in onset, nor does it account for any variations or trends in response prior to the landmark time point, making it a less precise estimate of overall treatment effect during the study period. It has been suggested that TWA is a more important consideration in chronic analgesia trials, while landmark measurement is better suited for acute analgesia trials [34].

For the two trials presented here, the ANCOVA-adjusted TWA and landmark values for etoricoxib at 12 weeks were generally similar, with the TWA change being slightly smaller than the landmark measurement for each of the three primary end points in both studies (Table 2a and b, Figs 3–5GoGo). The similarities of these two measurements in our studies suggest that there was little variation in treatment effect and that onset was similar. A larger difference in favour of a TWA value might be anticipated if the comparator were, for example, etoricoxib 60 mg, which has been shown to be superior to etoricoxib 30 mg in WOMAC Pain Subscale and patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) scores at 6 weeks in OA, with a more pronounced, sustained analgesia [24].

Because the studies presented here represent the first time etoricoxib has been directly compared with another selective COX-2 inhibitor in a prospective OA trial, it is impossible to directly compare our results to those from similar studies. However, some investigators have advocated the use of effect size (ES) to indirectly compare consistency and efficacy across trials. ES is a measure of treatment magnitude independent of sample size. There are several different methods to calculate ES, but in general it is determined by dividing the mean change in efficacy for an active agent compared with placebo by the pooled standard deviation (M1 – M2/{sigma}POOLED) [35, 36]. Although there are no absolute ES efficacy cut-offs, it has been estimated that an ES of 0.2 represents a small change, 0.5 a moderate change and 0.8 a large change [35]. In our studies, ES (calculated for the WOMAC Pain Subscale) for etoricoxib was 0.71 in study 1 and 0.53 in study 2; ES for celecoxib was 0.56 in study 1 and 0.54 in study 2. These results are generally consistent with previously published studies. A recent meta-analysis performed by Lee et al. [36] calculated ES of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs in 15 OA trials, all of which employed a flare design. Although none of the trials included the 30 mg dose of etoricoxib, the average ES of etoricoxib 60 mg for three trials was 0.73 [36]. An earlier dose-ranging study of etoricoxib in OA found that the ES for etoricoxib 30 mg was approximately one-half to two-thirds that observed for etoricoxib 60 or 90 mg [24], suggesting that our results are consistent with the meta-analysis. The average ES of celecoxib 200 mg qd over four trials in the meta-analysis was 0.26, which is considerably lower than our average of 0.55. The authors suggest that pre-randomization (i.e. pre-flare) pain severity may explain discrepancies, but this information is typically not reported, and was not available, thus making it difficult to compare these studies with ours. It should be noted, however, that the authors calculated the overall ES for all coxibs to be 0.44 (95% CI; 0.33, 0.55), slightly lower than our results [36].

Bjordal et al. [35] performed a similar meta-analysis of 23 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled NSAID and coxib trials of OA of the knee and/or hip. The combined ES for all NSAIDs (selective and non-selective) was 0.32 (95% CI; 0.24, 0.39) for pain reduction and 0.29 (95% CI; 0.18, 0.40) for functional disability reduction. The authors performed a subanalysis that excluded trials requiring a minimum flare, and determined the ES for all NSAIDs and coxibs to be 0.23 (95% CI; 0.16, 0.31) for pain, and 0.20 (95% CI; 0.09, 0.30) for functional disability, which is substantially lower than our findings. This may be due both to the fact that the meta-analysis pooled selective COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs together, as well as the exclusion of flare designs in the latter calculations.

The currently recommended dose of etoricoxib for OA in countries where it is approved, 60 mg, has been compared with etoricoxib 30 mg in OA in a 2-part, multi-extension trial. In part I of the base study, doses of 5, 10, 30, 60 and 90 mg were evaluated over 6 weeks. Dose-dependent efficacy was observed over the 5–60 mg dose range [24], with etoricoxib 60 mg demonstrating significantly more efficacy than etoricoxib 30 mg for the co-primary end points of WOMAC Pain Subscale, PGART and IGADS (P < 0.01 for all). Importantly, etoricoxib 30 mg was the lowest dose to consistently meet or exceed the study's pre-defined minimal clinically relevant changes (10 mm on VAS or 0.5 Likert units), confirming the clinical utility of the dosage. In Part II (8 weeks), which was designed to evaluate the consistency of treatment effect of etoricoxib over 14 weeks and to compare the treatment effect of etoricoxib versus diclofenac, patients from the placebo, etoricoxib 5 and 10 mg groups were reallocated to etoricoxib 30, 60, or 90 mg qd or diclofenac 50 mg tid. The improvements seen in the first 6 weeks with etoricoxib 30, 60, and 90 mg were sustained through 14 weeks, and the three etoricoxib doses appeared similar to each other and to diclofenac. It should be noted that Part II was not designed to compare the relative efficacy of the etoricoxib groups, and formal statistical testing was not performed. In the consecutive 12 and 26 week extensions of this study [37], the three etoricoxib doses (30, 60 and 90 mg) maintained clinical efficacy through 52 weeks, and were similar to diclofenac. Thus it appears that while etoricoxib 60 mg showed some early efficacy advantages, etoricoxib 30 mg demonstrated a clinically important degree of efficacy over 6 weeks which was maintained over 52 weeks.

The observation, that long-term, unopposed selective COX-2 inhibition may be associated with thrombotic CV and cerebrovascular side effects greater than placebo has raised concerns about the safety and future use of these agents in spite of their efficacy and improved GI tolerability compared with traditional NSAIDs [22, 38, 39]. On 30 September, 2004, Merck & Co., Inc. voluntarily withdrew rofecoxib from the worldwide market after reports from a large study showed an increased risk of thrombotic events beginning after 18 months of therapy in patients taking rofecoxib as compared with placebo [38]. In February 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a joint advisory committee to further evaluate NSAIDs and coxibs [40], and concluded that the CV findings should be treated as a class effect that involves both COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs [41]. In April 2005, valdecoxib was withdrawn from the market at the request of the FDA due to concerns about reports of Stevens–Johnson syndrome and of increased CV risk in patients receiving valdecoxib immediately following coronary artery bypass grafting [41]. Based on the current efficacy and safety evidence, a number of regulatory authorities, including the FDA and European Medicines Agency, recommended that NSAIDs or coxibs be used at the lowest possible dose for the shortest time possible [41, 42]. Thus, determining doses of medications with similar efficacy is important in making comparisons of safety. In this study, etoricoxib 30 mg/day was as effective as celecoxib 200 mg/day. A number of safety end points were assessed in this study including pre-determined evaluations of BP along with a careful adjudication of GI and cardiac events. Importantly, there was no significant difference in treatment-related AEs over the first 12 weeks compared with placebo for either of the active treatments, nor were there any significant differences in AEs for celecoxib compared with etoricoxib over the 26-week study. Hypertension was assessed carefully in this study in all patients with three measurements at each visit. At 26 weeks, both the active treatments showed similar mean increases in SBP and DBP, with etoricoxib trending numerically higher than celecoxib for both measures. These increases are consistent with previous studies that have shown small increases in BP with the use of NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors [43]. However, in our studies, discontinuations from hypertension- or oedema-related AEs were few and not significantly different across groups, nor was there evidence of increased AEs related to CHF, pulmonary oedema or cardiac failure. Furthermore, the incidence of serious thrombotic CV events in these studies was also low. It is important to note that this was a relatively short trial and was not designed as a safety trial. Although the studies’ 26-week duration has regulatory precedent for demonstrating tolerance for long-term therapy, the study was not designed either by size, duration or pre-specified end point or outcome to compare the incidence of rare events such as GI or CV AEs of these two COX-2 selective inhibitors. The numbers of patients and duration of therapy were not sufficient to make long-term conclusions concerning the chronic administration of either etoricoxib at 30 mg/day or celecoxib at 200 mg/day. To further address safety with chronic administration of etoricoxib, long-term studies are ongoing to precisely compare the CV safety of etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg to the most widely prescribed traditional NSAID in the world, diclofenac.


   Conclusion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
 References
 
Defining the therapeutic window is important in determining the use of medications for OA pain. These studies demonstrated that etoricoxib 30 mg qd is at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg qd in the treatment of OA of the knee and hip over 26 weeks based on reduction of pain, and improvement in physical function and global health status. Both active treatments provided superior efficacy compared with placebo over 12 weeks. The safety profiles of etoricoxib and celecoxib were similar over 26 weeks, including pre-defined AEs, with no safety risks noted compared with placebo over 12 weeks. Both active treatments had increased mean SBP and DBP from baseline over 26 weeks. Etoricoxib administered at 30 mg qd is efficacious in the treatment of OA.

Formula


   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
References
 
The authors would like to acknowledge the study investigators. Protocol 076: T Adams, Murray, KY; J Adler, Colorado Springs, CO; J Angeloni, Bala Cynwyd, PA; C Bingham III, New York, NY; C Birbara, Worcester, MA; B Bockow, Seattle, WA; D Borenstein, Washington, DC; V Bralow, Philadelphia, PA; B Corser, Cincinnati, OH; J Craig, Cincinnati, OH; R Crosby, Valdosta, GA; T Cymet, Baltimore, MD; G Eisenberg, Morton Grove, IL; S El Hafi, Houston, TX; R Emkey, Wyomissing, PA; R Ettlinger, Tacoma, WA; J Evans, Jacksonville, FL; M Feinman, Orangeburg, SC; J Fidelholtz, Cincinnati, OH; J Fiechtner, Lansing, MI; T Fiel, Tempe, AZ; C Fisher, Jr, Newport News, VA; HSE Fung, Waco, TX; L Gilderman, Pembroke Pines, FL; S Golombeck, Dover, NJ; M Greenwald, Palm Desert, CA; J Gresh, Ocala, FL; H Hauptman, Baltimore, MD; P Holt, Baltimore, MD; S Hufman, Wenatchee, WA; S Hull, Overland Park, KS; EC Iliades, W Yarmouth, MA; T Isakov, Lyndhurst, OH; SM Jones, Little Rock, AR; S Kafka, Duncansville, PA; L Kirby,II, Peoria, AZ; J Kremer, Albany, NY; U Kumar, Moline IL; D Kushner, Pittsburgh, PA; D Kutz, Madison, WI; J LaSalle, Excelsior Springs, MO; R Liebelt, Durham, NC; A Limanni, Dallas, TX; D Linden, Medford, OR; L McAdam, Thousand Oaks, CA; H McIlwain, Tampa, FL; S Miller, Las Vegas, NV; SD Miller, N Dartmouth, MA; M Patel, Centreville, OH; P Peters, San Antonio, TX; M Peveler, Louisville, KY; J Quigley, Encinatas, CA; H Resnick, Lake Jackson, TX; B Rubin, Fort Worth, TX; J Ruckle, Honolulu, HI; P Sandall, Albuquerque, NM; T Schnitzer, Chicago, IL; M Schwartz, New Haven, CT; R Severance, Chandler, AZ; W Shergy, Huntsville, AL; B Short, Overland Park, KS; A Slaski, Tucson, AZ; D Snow, Wilmington, NC; T Swartz, Kalamazoo, MI; JS Toder, Johnston, RI; D Waddell, Shreveport, LA; R Watson, West Jordan, UT; J Waxman, Santa Rosa, CA; S Weitzman, Needham, MA; C Wiesenhutter, Coeur d’Alene, ID; J Wilker, St. Cloud, FL; L Willis, Oklahoma City, OK; B Wittmer, Madisonville, KY; D Zmolek, Manlius, NY, USA.

Protocol 077: S Arnold, Honolulu, HI; A Aven, Arlington Heights, IL; A Babbitt, So. Portland, ME; H Baraf, Wheaton, MD; H Bays, Louisville, KY; S Carsons, Mineola, NY; T Coats, Austin, TX; C Codding, Oklahoma City, OK; K Collins, Champaign, IL; R Cook, Uniontown, PA; L Cowan, Thornville, OH; A Dahaul, Springfield, MA; J Donohue, Boston, MA; J Dreyfus, Munster, IN; W Eider, Yakima, WA; V Elinoff, Endwell, NY; M Ellerbusch, Northport, AL; J Farrell, St. Peters, MO; M Fisher, Haddon Heights, NJ; R Fleischmann, Dallas, TX; S Folkerth, Las Vegas, NV; J Forstot, Boca Raton, FL; D Fried, Warwick, RI; L Gassner, Phoenix, AZ; G Gladstein, Stamford, CT; A Goldman, Glendale, WI; D Gorman, Arvada, CO; J Green, Danbury, CT; J Grober, Evanston, IL; K Hackshaw, Columbus, OH; ER Harris, Whittier, CA; M Heller, Peabody, MA; D Herrington, San Angelo, TX; P Honig, Memphis, TN; T Hughes, Davis, CA; J Kaine, Sarasota, FL; S Kayota, Virginia Beach, VA; P Kempf, Arlington, VA; B Kerzner, Baltimore, MD; E Kim, Albuquerque, NM; J Lawless, Camillus, NY; R Lipetz, Spring Valley, CA; T Littlejohn,III, Winston-Salem, NC; K Martin, Little Rock, AR; R Martin, Grand Rapids, MI; C McCarthy, Mesa, AZ; M Miller, Gainesville, FL; G Myerson, Atlanta, GA; J Pappas, Mt Sterling, KY; M Pickrell, Austin, TX; R Pittsley, E Lansing, MI; L Popeil, Ocala, FL; E Portnoy, Westlake Village, CA; H Prupas, Reno, NV; A Puopolo, Milford, MA; C Recknor, Gainesville, FL; W Rizzo; Scottsdale, AZ; A Roumm, Camp Hill, PA; G Ruoff, Kalamazoo, MI; B Samuels, Dover, NH; L Schmidt, Tucson, AZ; A Sebba, Palm Harbor, FL; W Seger, Ft Worth, TX; E Sheldon, Miami, FL; E Siegel, Rockville, MD; B Snyder, West Seneca, NY; D Subich, Mansfield, OH; W Sullivan, Fairhope, AL; G Sultany, Portland, OR; HM Thomas, Prairie Village, KS; R Weinstein, Walnut Creek, CA; P Winkle, Cypress, CA; M Wukelic, Spokane, WA; J Yakish, Erie, PA, USA.

Conflict of Interest Statement. The study was funded by Merck & Co., Inc.; S.S.S., A.M.T., S.B., B.J.F. and K.O’B. are employees of Merck. C.O.B. has served as a clinical trial investigator for Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Novartis and McNeil, and as a consultant to Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis and McNeil. A.I.S. has received compensation from Merck & Co., Inc. for lectures, symposia and consulting, and for research from Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Abbott, Novartis and McNeil. B.R.R. has received research grants from Merck, Pfizer, Genentech, Centocor, Novartis and TAP. He is on the Speaker's Bureau or has served as a consultant to Merck, Pfizer, Amgen, Wyeth, Abbott, Genentech and Lilly. G.E.R. has received a research grant from Merck & Co., Inc. and J.K. has received funds from Merck & Co., Inc. for research and consulting.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, et al. (2000) Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med 133:635–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Rubin BR. (2001) Osteoarthritis. J Am Osteopath Assoc 101:S2–5.[Abstract]
  3. Elders MJ. (2000) The increasing impact of arthritis on public health. J Rheumatol Suppl 60:6–8.[Medline]
  4. Felson DT. (1993) The course of osteoarthritis and factors that affect it. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 19:607–15.[Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Zhang W, Doherty M, Arden N, et al. (2005) EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 64:669–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Jordan KM, Arden NK, Doherty M, et al. (2003) EULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence based approach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: Report of a Task Force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 62:1145–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Recommendations for the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: 2000 update. (2000) American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Osteoarthritis Guidelines. Arthritis Rheum 43:1905–15.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Gabriel SE, Jaakkimainen L, Bombardier C. (1991) Risk for serious gastrointestinal complications related to use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 115:787–96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Wolfe MM, Lichtenstein DR, Singh G. (1999) Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med 340:1888–99.[Free Full Text]
  10. Peura DA. (2004) Prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated gastrointestinal symptoms and ulcer complications. Am J Med 117:Suppl 5A, 63S–71.
  11. Pilotto A. (2004) Aging and upper gastrointestinal disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 18:Suppl, 73–81.
  12. Saag K, van der HD, Fisher C, et al. (2000) Rofecoxib, a new cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, shows sustained efficacy, comparable with other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a 6-week and a 1-year trial in patients with osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Studies Group. Arch Fam Med 9:1124–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Cannon GW, Caldwell JR, Holt P, et al. (2000) Rofecoxib, a specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2, with clinical efficacy comparable with that of diclofenac sodium: results of a one-year, randomized, clinical trial in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and hip. Rofecoxib Phase III Protocol 035 Study Group. Arthritis Rheum 43:978–87.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Kivitz AJ, Greenwald MW, Cohen SB, et al. (2004) Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:666–74.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. McKenna F, Borenstein D, Wendt H, Wallemark C, Lefkowith JB, Geis GS. (2001) Celecoxib versus diclofenac in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Scand J Rheumatol 30:11–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Goldstein JL, Correa P, Zhao WW, et al. (2001) Reduced incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers with celecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, compared to naproxen in patients with arthritis. Am J Gastroenterol 96:1019–27.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Hawkey CJ, Laine L, Simon T, Quan H, Shingo S, Evans J. (2003) Incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after 12 weeks of rofecoxib, naproxen, or placebo: a multicentre, randomised, double blind study. Gut 52:820–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Watson DJ, Yu Q, Bolognese JA, Reicin AS, Simon TJ. (2004) The upper gastrointestinal safety of rofecoxib vs. NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 20:1539–48.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Scheiman JM, Cryer B, Kimmey MB, Rothstein RI, Riff DS, Wolfe MM. (2004) A randomized, controlled comparison of ibuprofen at the maximal over-the-counter dose compared with prescription-dose celecoxib on upper gastrointestinal mucosal injury. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:290–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Hunt RH, Harper S, Watson DJ, et al. (2003) The gastrointestinal safety of the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib assessed by both endoscopy and analysis of upper gastrointestinal events. Am J Gastroenterol 98:1725–33.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Hunt RH, Harper S, Callegari P, et al. (2003) Complementary studies of the gastrointestinal safety of the cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective inhibitor etoricoxib. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 17:201–10.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, et al. (2000) Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. N Engl J Med 343:1520–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Arcoxia (etoricoxib, MSD) Worldwide Product Circular. (2005) (Merck & Co., Inc, Whitehouse Station, NJ).
  24. Gottesdiener K, Schnitzer T, Fisher C, et al. (2002) Results of a randomized, dose-ranging trial of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 41:1052–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Leung AT, Malmstrom K, Gallacher AE, et al. (2002) Efficacy and tolerability profile of etoricoxib in patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-comparator controlled 12-week efficacy trial. Curr Med Res Opin 18:49–58.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Zacher J, Feldman D, Gerli R, et al. (2003) A comparison of the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis. Curr Med Res Opin 19:725–36.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Wiesenhutter CW, Boice JA, Ko A, et al. (2005) Evaluation of the comparative efficacy of etoricoxib and ibuprofen for treatment of patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc 80:470–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy – I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Br Med J (1994) 308:81–106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Geba GP, Weaver AL, Polis AB, Dixon ME, Schnitzer TJ. (2002) Efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized trial. JAMA 287:64–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Schnitzer TJ, Weaver AL, Polis AB, Petruschke RA, Geba GP. (2005) Efficacy of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A combined analysis of the VACT studies. J Rheumatol 32:1093–105.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Day R, Morrison B, Luza A, et al. (2000) A randomized trial of the efficacy and tolerability of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib vs ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis. Rofecoxib/Ibuprofen Comparator Study Group. Arch Intern Med 160:1781–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Kivitz AJ, Moskowitz RW, Woods E, et al. (2001) Comparative efficacy and safety of celecoxib and naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip. J Int Med Res 29:467–79.[Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Bensen WG, Fiechtner JJ, McMillen JI, et al. (1999) Treatment of osteoarthritis with celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc 74:1095–105.[Abstract]
  34. Lu L. ( July 29, 2002) Time-Specific Measurements vs. Time-Weighted Average for Pain in Chronic and Acute Analgesia Trials. Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/slides/3873s1.htm. Accessed 21 March 2006.
  35. Bjordal JM, Ljunggren AE, Klovning A, Slordal L. (2004) Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, in osteoarthritic knee pain: meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials. Br Med J 329:1317–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Lee C, Hunsche E, Balshaw R, Kong SX, Schnitzer TJ. (2005) Need for common internal controls when assessing the relative efficacy of pharmacologic agents using a meta-analytic approach: case study of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 53:510–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Curtis SP, Bockow B, Fisher C, et al. (2005) Etoricoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis over 52-weeks: a double-blind, active-comparator controlled trial [NCT00242489]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6:58–67.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. (2005) Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N Engl J Med 352:1092–102.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Solomon SD, McMurray JJ, Pfeffer MA, et al. (2005) Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. N Engl J Med 352:1071–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Food and Drug Administration Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research. (2005) Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Committee Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cder05.html#DrugSafetyRiskMgmt. Accessed 01 December 2005.
  41. Food and Drug Administration Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research. Decision Memo: Analysis and Recommendations for Agency Action. COX-2 Selective and Non-selective NSAIDs. Food and Drug Administration 2005 Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/COX2/NSAIDdecisionMemo.pdf. Accessed 01 December 2005.
  42. European Medicines Agency. (2005) European Medicines Agency concludes action on COX-2 inhibitors. Available at http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pr/20776605en.pdf. Accessed 01 December 2005.
  43. Aw TJ, Haas SJ, Liew D, Krum H. (2005) Meta-analysis of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and their effects on blood pressure. Arch Intern Med 165:490–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Submitted 19 January 2006; revised version accepted 9 June 2006.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Public Health (Oxf)Home page
E. Chilet-Rosell, M. T. Ruiz-Cantero, and J. F. Horga
Women's health and gender-based clinical trials on etoricoxib: methodological gender bias
J. Public Health Med., September 1, 2009; 31(3): 434 - 445.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
C. O. Bingham III, S. S. Smugar, H. Wang, and A. M. Tershakovec
Early response to COX-2 inhibitors as a predictor of overall response in osteoarthritis: pooled results from two identical trials comparing etoricoxib, celecoxib and placebo
Rheumatology, September 1, 2009; 48(9): 1122 - 1127.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
J. S. Ross, K. P. Hill, D. S. Egilman, and H. M. Krumholz
Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation
JAMA, April 16, 2008; 299(15): 1800 - 1812.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
C. O. Bingham
Response to Dr Gotzche and Dr Bjarnason
Rheumatology, October 1, 2007; 46(10): 1624 - 1625.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
P. C. Gotzsche and N. H. Bjarnason
COX-2 inhibitor
Rheumatology, October 1, 2007; 46(10): 1623 - 1624.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/3/496    most recent
kel296v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bingham, C. O.
Right arrow Articles by Tershakovec, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bingham, C. O., III
Right arrow Articles by Tershakovec, A. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?